DO YOU STILL THINK SHE'S FAT ARTHUR
November 20, 2019 5:20 AM   Subscribe

 
I loved this. I read it in bed one Saturday and had trouble trying to explain to my partner why I couldn't go to breakfast because I was too busy reading Dracula livetweets.
posted by tofu_crouton at 5:40 AM on November 20, 2019 [3 favorites]


This was really good. Perhaps you are thinking "oh another one of those fatiguing 'I'm going to tweet about how dumb and weird an olde-tymey thing was using gifs and the conviction that I am cleverer than all who've gone before' things that often contains a lot of wrong assumptions about the past" but no, this is really smart and funny and is a great use of the form. It's good in so many ways - smart observations about the book, focus on how the book was received when published, good foregrounding of contemporary plot expectations versus book arc.

I particularly like how she's able to bring forward the weirdness of the past without confusing that for "everyone in the past was dumb and naive unlike clever irreverent us". History should be estranging and weird and make you see just how contingent the contemporary is and just how much things can change in a fairly short span.

It really foregrounds how much we've always-already read Dracula and how that clouds our perceptions of the book.

Seldom do I really think "this is the best of the web" instead of "this is useful, depressing information about a horrible society circling the drain", but this is the best of the web.
posted by Frowner at 6:12 AM on November 20, 2019 [31 favorites]


I particularly like how she's able to bring forward the weirdness of the past without confusing that for "everyone in the past was dumb and naive unlike clever irreverent us".

WELL ACTUALLY.. Mina Harker is smarter than the rest of the characters combined, and what do they do with her? Lock her up in a secluded bedroom, in the lunatic asylum opposite Dracula's house, to keep her "safe" while they all go off to bungle night after night of vampire hunting.
posted by thelonius at 6:18 AM on November 20, 2019 [3 favorites]




Coincidentally, Kate Beaton has also been reading/listening to the book, and recommends Walker's thread.
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:28 AM on November 20, 2019


WELL ACTUALLY.. Mina Harker is smarter than the rest of the characters combined, and what do they do with her?

I've always thought (as far as authorial intent is important) that it's pretty clear from the text that Stoker intends this "protection" of Mina to be the mistake that nearly leads to disaster. That has always seemed to me a pretty clear strength of the book, and one that supports the view that old-timey people were as aware of the prevailing problems and injustices in their society as we are of those in ours, even as we/they contribute/d to them.
posted by howfar at 6:29 AM on November 20, 2019 [11 favorites]


I mean, Mina is the brains of the entire thing: she solves the mystery, documents everything rigourously, uses her psychic powers to hunt down Dracula and then apparently got a publishing deal for the dossier she's compiled. It's pretty clear to me that Stoker doesn't think the boys are smart treating her like the helpless little woman.
posted by howfar at 6:35 AM on November 20, 2019 [3 favorites]


WELL ACTUALLY.. Mina Harker is smarter than the rest of the characters combined, and what do they do with her? Lock her up in a secluded bedroom, in the lunatic asylum opposite Dracula's house, to keep her "safe" while they all go off to bungle night after night of vampire hunting.

No, that's not what I mean. It's the assumption, very common in lol-the-past stuff, that the readers and writers of the past were simple people, kind of stupid, didn't understand that they were actually writing about sex, etc. The idea that we apply our presentist reading to the book to reveal that it's actually about sex but of course no Victorians read or thought about sex ever, say we whose knowledge of the Victorian era could fit in a teacup; the idea that something that literally wasn't understood to be about sex was actually about sex and we clever moderns see clearly; the idea that mocking something is the ultimate form of analysis. It's depressing and boring and flattens anything written before about 1980.

Above all the absolute refusal of the sympathetic reading. By "sympathetic reading" I don't mean "this book is a product of its time so it's cool if it's racist or misogynist"; I mean reading a book with some attempt to understand what the author intended and what contemporary readings would have been common.

What's more, the lol-past stuff is usually accompanied by a totally uncritical acceptance of, eg, contemporary literary fiction, contemporary movies, etc, because we in the present are very clever and produce smart, irreverent media unlike dumb people in the before times. (If you're chewing through a lot of middlebrow BOMC stuff written in generic lit-fic voice and lolling about the past, I have some sad news for you about the future.)

I always think about the post, linked on here a couple of years ago, where these two women were trying to bake a cake following a nineteenth century recipe and made the most dumb-ass mistake I've ever heard of and then made fun of the recipe and said that it was terrible. You see, they didn't understand that if you're a pre-eggbeater/pre-mixer person and you're making a cake with whipped egg whites, you use your arm muscles to whip the egg whites until they're stiff. You just do this. It's how you cook when you don't have a mechanical means available. If you are a presentist and you can't get the egg whites to whip before your arm gets tired and you bake the cake anyway the cake is going to be flat. That isn't the fault of the 19th century or a sign that cakes were sad at the time - it's your fault.

Or the time that the guy was doing a really dumb retrospective piece about the Clash's Sandinista album and did not understand and could not bother to look up the meaning of a song and so did not understand that it wasn't some nebulous "song about revolution in some developing nation" but a song about racist police violence in a London neighborhood. That's what I mean by presentism - the assumption that the laziest contemporary reading is correct because of course we're very clever in the present and we can immediately understand the past without any effort.

This is the opposite of the twitter thread, which assumes that some imaginative effort is required to get the most out of the book.
posted by Frowner at 6:38 AM on November 20, 2019 [63 favorites]


I read Dracula a while ago and I love telling people about how one of the major good-guy characters is a Texan cowboy. Funny how that doesn't tend to make it into the adaptations.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:27 AM on November 20, 2019 [6 favorites]


"The Dialectic of Fear" by Franco Moretti, has a lot of good stuff to say about the American, capitalism and Dracula.

Moretti has been plausibly charged with several incidents of sexual assault and harassment, so he does not seem to be a nice person and you should not throw any money his way, but the essay is free online.

Although IMO the most interesting part of the essay is about aristocracy, finance capital and the British empire, this is probably a bit more in line with the tweets:

A sociological analysis of Frankenstein and Dracula reveals that one of the institutions most threatened by the monsters is the family. Yet this fear cannot be explained wholly in historical and economic terms. On the contrary, it is very likely that its deepest root is to be found elsewhere: in Eros. 'Dracula', David Pirie has written, '. . . can be seen as the great submerged force of Victorian libido breaking out to punish the repressive society which had imprisoned it; one of the most appalling things that Dracula does to the matronly women of his Victorian enemies (in the novel as in the film) is to make them sensual.' It is true. For confirmation one only has to reread the episode of Lucy. Lucy is the only character who falls victim to Dracula. She is punished, because she is the only one who shows some kind of desire. Stoker is inflexible on this point: all the other characters are immune to the temptations of the flesh, or capable of rigorous sublimations. Van Helsing, Morris, Seward and Holmwood are all single. Mina and Jonathan get married in hospital, when Jonathan is in a state of prostration and impotence; and they marry in order to mend, to forget the terrible experience (which was also sexual) undergone by Jonathan in Transylvania. 'Share my ignorance' is what he asks of his wife.

Not so Lucy, who awaits her wedding day with impatience. It is on this restlessness -- on her 'somnambulism' -- that Dracula exerts leverage to win her. And the more he takes possession of Lucy, the more he brings out her sexual side. A few moments before her death, 'She opened her eyes, which were now dull and hard at once, and said in a soft voluptuous voice, such as I had never heard from her lips: . . .'. And Lucy as a 'vampire' is even more seductive: 'The sweetness was turned to adamantine, heartless cruelty, and the purity to voluptuous wantonness. . . . the face became wreathed with a voluptuous smile . . . she advanced to him with outstretched arms and a wanton smile . . . and with a langorous, voluptuous grace, said: "Come to me, Arthur. Leave these others and come to me. My arms are hungry for you. Come, and we can rest together. Come, my husband, come!"' The seduction is about to work, but Van Helsing breaks its spell. They proceed to Lucy's execution. Lucy dies in a very unusual way: in the throes of what, to the 'public' mind of the Victorians, must have seemed like an orgasm: 'The Thing in the coffin writhed; and a hideous, blood-curdling screech came from the opened red lips. The body shook and quivered and twisted in wild contortions; the sharp white teeth champed together till the lips were cut and the mouth was smeared with a crimson foam.' Surrounded by his friends who goad him on with their cries, Arthur Holmwood Lord Godalming purges the world of this fearful Thing; not without deriving, {79} in distorted but transparent forms, enormous sexual satisfaction: 'He looked like a figure of Thor as his untrembling arm rose and fell, driving deeper and deeper the mercy-bearing stake, whilst the blood from the pierced heart welled and spurted up around it.'

Dracula, then, liberates and exalts sexual desire. And this desire attracts but -- at the same time -- frightens. Lucy is beautiful, but dangerous. Fear and attraction are one and the same: and not just in Stoker. Much of nineteenth-century bourgeois high culture had already treated Eros and sex as ambivalent phenomena.


My point being that Stoker didn't accidentally write sex vampires with homoeroticism and a lot of stuff that equates desire with fear while equating repression with safety because he was a naive Past Person in the grip of his unconscious; the ambiguity and weirdness of desire was his whole point.
posted by Frowner at 7:41 AM on November 20, 2019 [12 favorites]


It really is so fun to read, especially as a person who will read/watch basically any old garbage with vampires in it. It's amazing to see both 1. a bunch of tropes you take for granted being invented all at once and 2. a bunch of other tropes that never caught on for whatever reason.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:08 AM on November 20, 2019 [2 favorites]


I say with no irony whatsoever that if Stoker were writing in the 21st century, the characters would be blogging, tweeting, or doing something else electronic. Tech in the novel is the straight-up late-Victorian equivalent of CSI.
posted by thomas j wise at 8:14 AM on November 20, 2019 [15 favorites]


Also from near the end of the thread, Mina And Her Himbos is my new mental title for Dracula, thank you very much
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:15 AM on November 20, 2019 [6 favorites]


I say with no irony whatsoever that if Stoker were writing in the 21st century, the characters would be blogging, tweeting, or doing something else electronic. Tech in the novel is the straight-up late-Victorian equivalent of CSI.

Oh, absolutely. A giant leap for me, text-understander, was when I read this and thought "Stoker is commenting on modernity by having people use all these modern methods!!!! This is high-tech stuff!!"

The question is, if Stoker were writing now, what would represent the ancient? On the one hand you could be like "VCRs" and maybe have Dracula be a....reclusive artist in some part of the global periperhy? with a cache of precious archival material? Or maybe one of those mini-royals with a trendy apartment in London that seems to be un-lived-in for normal property-investment ghost-city reasons but really it's because he's undead?

What global periphery would one choose? To follow Stoker, you would have it be some area once great and once marked by grotesque tyranny but now peripheral.

I think that because of the change in valence of fantasy from Stoker's time to ours, we'd probably be a bit on the nose about it, with the former center marked by violence being a plantation or a mining town and the "capital" held by new-Dracula derived from those things, so it would be TBH a lot darker than Dracula. I mean, if we were really following Stoker, we'd have the former periphery be treated as a backwards area and traveling there would in fact be traveling back through time, but that's obnoxious.
posted by Frowner at 8:25 AM on November 20, 2019 [5 favorites]


What global periphery would one choose? To follow Stoker, you would have it be some area once great and once marked by grotesque tyranny but now peripheral.

Post-post-apocalyptic America where Dracula is a surviving pre-fall investment banker lording it over tower-peasants in the decadent ruins of New York City. Everybody else is from the thriving Great Lakes Empire. The cowboy is still from Texas.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:30 AM on November 20, 2019 [13 favorites]


one of the major good-guy characters is a Texan cowboy. Funny how that doesn't tend to make it into the adaptations.

There were a lot of atrocious accents in the 1993 version. One of them may have been Attempted Texan.

Anyway, Dracula is (I think) the literary character who has been adapted to the screen the most frequently. As such, the adaptations have developed a degree of inertia in how they portray the character and the events of the novel, to the point that a faithful adaptation would get laughed at (there is probably a TV Tropes entry for this effect, but every time I go in there, five hours of my life evaporates). Stoker makes ever explicit references to Dracula’s luxurious moustache, but Blacula aside, the count is pretty much always clean-shaven or has at most a wispy little goatee.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:40 AM on November 20, 2019 [2 favorites]


Anyway, Dracula is (I think) the literary character who has been adapted to the screen the most frequently.

At least as of 2015 which is the most recent info I could find, yep! I do wonder if Sherlock Holmes has overtaken him again, it was pretty close.

I'm fascinated that the (non-literary) characters beating him out are in ascending order: Hitler, Napolean, God, Jesus, Santa, and the Devil at #1. We do love our villains.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:52 AM on November 20, 2019 [2 favorites]


I’d watch the hell out of Sherlock vs Dracula FWIW.
posted by q*ben at 9:00 AM on November 20, 2019 [5 favorites]


Would a novel do?
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:02 AM on November 20, 2019 [3 favorites]


If you want a hardcore Dracula experience, you could always shell out for this:

DRACULA: The Evidence is an entirely new way to experience Stoker's masterpiece: through an actual physical research file full of ephemera, correspondence, clues and artifacts. It's the entire original text of Dracula, presented as a gorgeously designed and curated briefcase full of maps, letters, diaries, newspaper clippings, telegrams, and phonograph records. We've teamed up with Dracula expert and Bram's descendent Dacre Stoker to bring you the most immersive way imaginable to experience this modernist masterpiece of gothic horror.

posted by kaisemic at 9:05 AM on November 20, 2019 [5 favorites]


There’s also The Holmes-Dracula File by Fred Saberhagen, sequel to The Dracula Tape. I loved it.
posted by daisyk at 9:07 AM on November 20, 2019 [2 favorites]


My point being that Stoker didn't accidentally write sex vampires with homoeroticism and a lot of stuff that equates desire with fear while equating repression with safety because he was a naive Past Person in the grip of his unconscious; the ambiguity and weirdness of desire was his whole point.

Also why setting True Blood in the southern US in the 90s was so genius. You could copy/replace the work and the setting and lose nothing from that argument.
posted by bonehead at 9:28 AM on November 20, 2019 [2 favorites]


bonehead, I was just reflecting that adhering to Victorian girlish innocence requires thinking about Possible Sex constantly. At least, that was my experience of visiting Southern Baptist relatives, which was a difference in amplitude but not kind from being a high school girl in a relatively liberal town.

Also, always useful to remember that sex was significantly dangerous before antibiotics. Pregnancy and STDs, but even UTIs are lethal or debilitating if you can’t treat them.

One of the reasons antibiotic misuse in meat is a terrible trade. IIRC battery chicken consumption is already associated with more antibiotic-resistant UTIs.
posted by clew at 9:45 AM on November 20, 2019 [6 favorites]


Stoker makes ever explicit references to Dracula’s luxurious moustache, but Blacula aside, the count is pretty much always clean-shaven or has at most a wispy little goatee.

The depiction of Dracula in Castlevania is a notable exception to this, although he sometimes reverts to the clean-shaven Bela Lugosi archetype.
posted by neckro23 at 11:32 AM on November 20, 2019


Oh, mustaches, dance history suggests the had giant droopy mustache-sideburns that meant Sexy Cavalryman to mid-Victorians because a couple generations earlier quite a few Polish and Lithuanian(?) cavalry officers discovered that they could use their sexy ethnic wild man skill at the mazurka and redowa to become diplomatic attachés instead of getting chewed up in the interests of the French.

Am on tiny pipe, not googling for pictures, there are lots.

Sorry not sorry for run on sentence. Should recast into double dactyls though.
posted by clew at 12:25 PM on November 20, 2019 [3 favorites]


if Stoker were writing in the 21st century, the characters would be blogging

You rang?
posted by doctornemo at 12:34 PM on November 20, 2019 [1 favorite]


(Well, strictly speaking the characters aren't blogging in that project. The text is blogged without much framing. But it is a blog.)
posted by doctornemo at 12:34 PM on November 20, 2019


I have been recommending this thread all over the place, even (gasp) Facebook! So glad to see it hit the blue; it's hilarious, educational and yeah, I agree, completely best of the web.
posted by mygothlaundry at 12:43 PM on November 20, 2019 [1 favorite]


If you read that and wanted to feel the thrill, I can strongly recommend the audiobook read by Peter Bachelor. It is not totally serious, but both the humour and the horror come through, and he does all the accents

We got it because it seemed like good value for money at 99p, but I think it may have gone up now!
posted by fizban at 1:44 PM on November 20, 2019


I thought I had read Dracula, but the Twitter thread makes me think I haven't.
posted by medusa at 2:58 PM on November 20, 2019


Tbqh, this was also a good reminder that whatever its (MANY) flaws, the 1993 Dracula is in many ways a pretty decent adaptation of the original, sexual anxieties and all. (Somewhere I have a postcard of Keanu surrounded by the Bad Vampire Bitches, because of course I do.)

I read the book ages ago and watched that movie a bunch, and I loved the hell out of this thread and particularly her admiration of The Cowboy and Mina's communication skills.
posted by epersonae at 3:05 PM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


I’d watch the hell out of Sherlock vs Dracula FWIW

One of the many great things about the must-read Anno Dracula is that when Dracula gets in charge of London, one of the first things he does is put Holmes in jail. Because, obviously.
posted by lumpenprole at 3:16 PM on November 20, 2019 [1 favorite]


Fanfare thread for the book.
posted by Fukiyama at 3:42 PM on November 20, 2019 [1 favorite]


I recently rewatched the 1979 Frank Langella Dracula. Rewatched - I saw it in the theater, age 12. They took whatever was subtext about sexuality and foregrounded it, which went over my head then. Mina just gets flat-out seduced, end of story. I had forgotten that they dispensed with the Transylvania part entirely - the film begins in England. There are other differences. Jonathan Harker has a car. Lucy is Dr. Van Helsing's daughter. It is a curious mixture of being kind of great and kind of terrible, which seems about right for a 1979 film. Worth a watch if you are a fan.
posted by thelonius at 6:36 PM on November 20, 2019


My point being that Stoker didn't accidentally write sex vampires with homoeroticism and a lot of stuff that equates desire with fear while equating repression with safety because he was a naive Past Person in the grip of his unconscious; the ambiguity and weirdness of desire was his whole point.

I saw a thing on Tumblr recently about how Dracula was written around the time of Oscar Wilde's conviction and was in part an exploration of homosexual secrecy. I'll see if I can find it...
posted by subdee at 7:09 PM on November 20, 2019 [2 favorites]


https://forkflinger.tumblr.com/post/189158455924/fun-fact-for-you-all-bram-stoker-started-writing
posted by subdee at 7:11 PM on November 20, 2019


This was great:
Dr. Seward, a psychologist: *takes one look at the sickly pale and lethargic Lucy* Yep the problem's definitely her brain
I enjoyed the book more than I expected back when I read it, which was maybe the mid '90s (a few years after Coppola's movie.) I mention this because it's conceivable my response was in part a backlash to peak "it's erotic" interpretations. But for me while there was obviously endless sex metaphoring, the Mina/Dracula thing was flat out rape. The fact that it's since been presented as seduction and even romantic longing has since always bothered me.

I 100% agree with the point that this was the urban fantasy of it's day, men of science and technology facing a thing of its past. (This came up in the twitter thread but blood transfusions at the time of the novel predated blood typing.)

Finally, I like the book so I get the instinct to think Stoker knew what he was doing. The hypothesis doesn't stand up if you acknowledge the existence of Lair of the White Worm.
posted by mark k at 9:16 PM on November 20, 2019 [1 favorite]


Every so often I get sad that the TV show Dracula starring Jonathan Rhys Meyers only got a single season. It was very enjoyable.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 11:51 PM on November 20, 2019


Tbqh, this was also a good reminder that whatever its (MANY) flaws, the 1993 Dracula is in many ways a pretty decent adaptation of the original, sexual anxieties and all.

I don't know. I mean, Dracula is, in the novel, not a broken hearted soul searching for his lost love: he's a rapist. For the clearest demonstration of this, the scene in chapter 21, where Jonathan is held helpless in bed as Dracula violates Mina next to him, is, if not a literal depiction of rape (and I'm not 100% sure it isn't), clearly meant to evoke rape in every way that Stoker felt he could get away with.

Which isn't to say that Stoker understands rape as a progressive modern person would: what is particularly horrific to the Victorian male sensibility (and why chapter 21 gives the strongest support to the "Dracula as rapist" view) is the act of rape as an act of theft from the husband, not the violation itself.

The fundamental threat of Dracula is that he is seen to violate, corrupt and, in effect, impregnate (because they will rise as his child) the women that "belong" to the group. Stoker, of course, complicates this by introducing Lucy's love quadrangle as soon as she is introduced, raising questions about this ownership between the protagonists, that are eventually only settled once and for all when Holmwood kills her: he, at the agreement of the others, takes possession of Lucy for himself and his side by the act of sexualised violence described above.

Dracula is a great horror novel, in my view, precisely because the themes underlying it aren't primarily those of love but rather violence and domination.
posted by howfar at 1:19 AM on November 21, 2019 [5 favorites]


[1979] Mina just gets flat-out seduced

As in, Dracula has a date with her at his place and makes her dinner.
posted by thelonius at 7:30 AM on November 21, 2019


The hypothesis doesn't stand up if you acknowledge the existence of Lair of the White Worm.

While not giving a pass to the story on any level, I think that Stoker had something in 1897 that he had palpably lost, quite probably due to brain damage due to the strokes he suffered towards the end of his life, by 1911. Lovecraft's description of the execution as infantile is pretty much spot on, and I just don't think that someone who exhibited the level of skill Stoker had when he wrote Dracula could possibly have produced something so fundamentally terrible as LotWW.

As in, Dracula has a date with her at his place and makes her dinner.

Weirdly, this parallels the book, insofar as Dracula brings dinner to Harker on his first night in the castle: "The count himself came forward and took off the cover of a dish, and I fell to at once on an excellent roast chicken. This, with some cheese and a salad and a bottle of old tokay, of which I had two glasses, was my supper". Now, given that we are told that Dracula has no servants (he even has to impersonate his own coachman to collect Harker), and the Brides just don't seem like they're going to be down for domestic work, the most likely conclusion is that Dracula is down in the kitchen slaving over the oven in order to maintain his pretence.

Silly though this reading is, it does work thematically with why Dracula is one of the great horror villains. Both because it would reflect how resourceful and adaptable he is in straitened circumstances and because it reflects the way he develops from being an almost comically archaic hermit at the outset of the story to, after his arrival in England, becoming a threat to the very fabric of modernity.

But mainly it's just funny to imagine Dracula basting.
posted by howfar at 7:45 AM on November 21, 2019 [10 favorites]


Weirdly, this parallels the book, insofar as Dracula brings dinner to Harker on his first night in the castle:

Yeah, I think part of the role this sequence played was to substitute for the missing Transylvania episode.
posted by thelonius at 8:05 AM on November 21, 2019 [1 favorite]


Finally, I like the book so I get the instinct to think Stoker knew what he was doing. The hypothesis doesn't stand up if you acknowledge the existence of Lair of the White Worm.

I think the thing is to recognise that Stoker knew what he was doing in his capacity as an intelligent and thoughtful white, middle-class man of the Victorian era, with the myriad of prejudices and assumptions that entails. People of that era understood things differently, but that doesn't mean they didn't understand them, worry about them or have ambivalent feelings about them*. It's important we recognise this because, if we don't, we absolve our predecessors of their actual failings: the only sins we can accuse them of are caricatures of their actual, far more complex sins. If we don't recognise that these people were just as complex and self-aware as us we are incapable of holding history to account and incapable of learning from it in any productive way.

*but see what I've said above about the misogynist and patriarchal underpinning to the horror of the book: I'm on no level trying to argue that Stoker's views about women were anything but reprehensible from our (exceptionally well justified) perspective.
posted by howfar at 9:52 AM on November 21, 2019


epersonae: "Tbqh, this was also a good reminder that whatever its (MANY) flaws, the 1993 Dracula is in many ways a pretty decent adaptation of the original, sexual anxieties and all."

Thank you, I came here to say just this.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:59 PM on November 21, 2019


One of the many great things about the must-read Anno Dracula is that when Dracula gets in charge of London, one of the first things he does is put Holmes in jail. Because, obviously.

I just read this, on your recommendation. In the epilogue the author says that Holmes/Jack the Ripper fiction had always seemed unbelievable to him, because Holmes would have the case wrapped up by dinner time. So he had to get him out of the way for the novel, since the Ripper plays a major role (that's a spoiler, yes, but it won't be if you read like literally the first three pages of the novel, so, don't @ me).
posted by thelonius at 2:56 PM on November 27, 2019


Mustache, mustache, diagrams of Hungarian mustaches.
posted by clew at 10:27 PM on November 29, 2019


« Older Then Annie moved in.   |   Relighting human captures for placement into... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments