Characterization

File002ma119096210012 Pat Rice here:

Ulp, Tuesday sneaked up on me again!  Ornery critter, it just lies in wait and pounces when I’m buried under galleys and revisions and proposals and the weather is really too lovely to be indoors.

Since, by now, I assume our regular readers really don’t expect a scholarly treatise from me, I won’t disappoint today.  <G>  I’ll just blather the topic currently on my mind, which again happens to be an article in the Romance Writers Report: “Creating Dynamic Characters Through Authentic Dialogue” by Beth Morrow.

I read the article a few days ago so only the basics are nagging at the back of my mind. If memory serves me (and it seldom does), her essential premise was that men and women approach life differently, think differently, and thus, speak differently.  I don’t disagree, but I will take exception to the generality of saying that men don’t use flowery words but speak only in terms of goals and actions.  That might work for romance alpha heroes, but (1) not all men are alphas, and (2) I resent confining romance with still another limitation on the characters we create.Att2ma130252520002

Since I write historicals, it’s easier for me to call upon historical figures as proof for my objections. Consider, if you will, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Lord Byron, Tolstoy… the list could go on forever.  Are these men who spoke only in terms of goals and actions? Was all their speech blunt and to the point? If so, where did all those words they wrote come from?  Did they only think in inventive, philosophical, and moral circles and just grunted aloud?  I don’t think so.

I haven’t had time to research the study to which the article referred, but I have to assume that percentages were involved.  It’s doubtful that any study has ever had 100% results on any topic anyone ever questioned.  Maybe 55% of the men in the study spoke directly, but that leaves 45% of the population quite willing to articulate feelings and thoughts and philosophize over possibilities.  Let’s face it, through history, women did not have the power to invent the church, our government, or technology.  Men had to think and puzzle and talk and philosophize to develop the world we live in today. I don’t think that was entirely accomplished by direct commands.

Certainly, if I want to write a military hero, I might give him a “voice” that commands and orders.  That would be perfectly in character with reader expectations.  But I do not want to be told that ALL military heroes are blunt Neanderthals who point and grunt. If I choose to write about a soldier at Waterloo who goes home to write poetry and woos his heroine with flowery flattery, I don’t want to be told he’s not masculine! 

Obviously, I have a problem with being told what to do. File000ma119096210010_1   My teachers often remarked upon this.  But I fear that the “dumbing down” of literature comes from our current marketing attempts to find the widest audience by generalizing our characters and stories to the narrowest reader expectations.  And contrarian that I am, the more I’m told how my characters should think and speak, the farther out on a limb I’m going to go to prove the genre wrong.

Does everyone out there want to read about alpha males who order people about but get their comeuppance in the end? Has this caricature become so ingrained in romance that readers can’t enjoy any deeper characterization? Am I alone out here on the end of this limb?

39 thoughts on “Characterization”

  1. Hi Pat,
    I agree with you! When I read your post I thought immediately of Carla Kelly and her brilliant cast of sea captains and army commanders–gruff and commanding men who are also articulate, tender and funny. They are fully developed characters who feel intensely authentic–and romantic! (BTW, is Carla Kelly ever going to publish again? Do any of you wenches know?)
    Melinda

    Reply
  2. Hi Pat,
    I agree with you! When I read your post I thought immediately of Carla Kelly and her brilliant cast of sea captains and army commanders–gruff and commanding men who are also articulate, tender and funny. They are fully developed characters who feel intensely authentic–and romantic! (BTW, is Carla Kelly ever going to publish again? Do any of you wenches know?)
    Melinda

    Reply
  3. Hi Pat,
    I agree with you! When I read your post I thought immediately of Carla Kelly and her brilliant cast of sea captains and army commanders–gruff and commanding men who are also articulate, tender and funny. They are fully developed characters who feel intensely authentic–and romantic! (BTW, is Carla Kelly ever going to publish again? Do any of you wenches know?)
    Melinda

    Reply
  4. All I can say is WHERE IS SUSAN? I know she has to have read the correspondence between Sarah and John Churchill. And what about the letters Fox wrote his (secret) wife Mrs. Armistead? Maybe in general men aren’t flowery, but clearly when romantically inclined many of them are . . .
    I read that same article (I’m 99% sure, anyway) and it just left me rolling my eyes and gritting my teeth (but then maybe that’s cause I’m a woman who speaks like a “man” if we are to buy into the genralizations we were presented with).

    Reply
  5. All I can say is WHERE IS SUSAN? I know she has to have read the correspondence between Sarah and John Churchill. And what about the letters Fox wrote his (secret) wife Mrs. Armistead? Maybe in general men aren’t flowery, but clearly when romantically inclined many of them are . . .
    I read that same article (I’m 99% sure, anyway) and it just left me rolling my eyes and gritting my teeth (but then maybe that’s cause I’m a woman who speaks like a “man” if we are to buy into the genralizations we were presented with).

    Reply
  6. All I can say is WHERE IS SUSAN? I know she has to have read the correspondence between Sarah and John Churchill. And what about the letters Fox wrote his (secret) wife Mrs. Armistead? Maybe in general men aren’t flowery, but clearly when romantically inclined many of them are . . .
    I read that same article (I’m 99% sure, anyway) and it just left me rolling my eyes and gritting my teeth (but then maybe that’s cause I’m a woman who speaks like a “man” if we are to buy into the genralizations we were presented with).

    Reply
  7. “Am I alone out here on the end of this limb?”
    Lord, no! I’m a sucker for a brainy hero. Hazard is one of my favorite Beverley’s because of Race. Then there was Harry in As You Desire. Sure he was a hunk, but his braininess really set him apart. And I have a serious crush on Robert Goren.
    I find intelligence very sexy, and it holds my attention past the flash-in-the-pan surface. Alexandra Sellers has a couple of old category romances with artist heroes, a novelist and a war photographer. When I think of her work, those guys stand out in my memory over the cookie-cutter sheikhs of her more recent books.
    If fact, I’d love to hear some recommendations for books with articulate/intelligent heroes.

    Reply
  8. “Am I alone out here on the end of this limb?”
    Lord, no! I’m a sucker for a brainy hero. Hazard is one of my favorite Beverley’s because of Race. Then there was Harry in As You Desire. Sure he was a hunk, but his braininess really set him apart. And I have a serious crush on Robert Goren.
    I find intelligence very sexy, and it holds my attention past the flash-in-the-pan surface. Alexandra Sellers has a couple of old category romances with artist heroes, a novelist and a war photographer. When I think of her work, those guys stand out in my memory over the cookie-cutter sheikhs of her more recent books.
    If fact, I’d love to hear some recommendations for books with articulate/intelligent heroes.

    Reply
  9. “Am I alone out here on the end of this limb?”
    Lord, no! I’m a sucker for a brainy hero. Hazard is one of my favorite Beverley’s because of Race. Then there was Harry in As You Desire. Sure he was a hunk, but his braininess really set him apart. And I have a serious crush on Robert Goren.
    I find intelligence very sexy, and it holds my attention past the flash-in-the-pan surface. Alexandra Sellers has a couple of old category romances with artist heroes, a novelist and a war photographer. When I think of her work, those guys stand out in my memory over the cookie-cutter sheikhs of her more recent books.
    If fact, I’d love to hear some recommendations for books with articulate/intelligent heroes.

    Reply
  10. Great post!! I read that article, too, Pat, and in irritated me no end. It not only feeds into every horrible gender sterotype, but also reinforces the worst preconceptions about romance: that it’s all a formula, Hero A with Heroine B, and happily ever after, yadadayada. And that article was in our national organization’s journal, yet.
    But enough irate tirades….
    Yes, Kalen, if there was ever a military man who broke that stereotype, it was John Churchill. No one ever doubted his bravery, his skill with pistol and sword, his genius at plotting battles and winnng entire wars.
    But he was also a total pussycat: his letters to Sarah are full of flowery, heartfelt endearments, and he wrote to her religiously, even in the middle of battle. (Her letters in return are much more practical, full of politics and finances and indignities, imagined and real, that she’d had to endure at Court.) His lasting favor with Queen Anne was as much because of his unusual ability to listen to her — a woman!! — with respect and real interest, as for his diplomatic skills. His soliders adored him, for he treated them humanely, not just as warriors, and his only percieved flaw by his superiors was that on occassion he was too “soft” for the floggings and other harsh discipline of the seventeenth century army. He CRIED, for Heaven’s sake, and didn’t care who saw him do it.
    Most rare of all, I think, was his great relationships with his children. During the annual “off-season” for the European wars, he’d go back home to the country to be with them, playing and coddling and piggy-back-riding in a very Modern Dad way. From the children’s letters, it’s painfully clear that Sarah was one scary, demanding mother, while John was the one they loved without reserve, and the one, too, that they wrote to when they needed him to intercede with Sarah.
    So yeah, there’s historical proof that military heros needn’t be “point and grunt Neanderthals.”

    Reply
  11. Great post!! I read that article, too, Pat, and in irritated me no end. It not only feeds into every horrible gender sterotype, but also reinforces the worst preconceptions about romance: that it’s all a formula, Hero A with Heroine B, and happily ever after, yadadayada. And that article was in our national organization’s journal, yet.
    But enough irate tirades….
    Yes, Kalen, if there was ever a military man who broke that stereotype, it was John Churchill. No one ever doubted his bravery, his skill with pistol and sword, his genius at plotting battles and winnng entire wars.
    But he was also a total pussycat: his letters to Sarah are full of flowery, heartfelt endearments, and he wrote to her religiously, even in the middle of battle. (Her letters in return are much more practical, full of politics and finances and indignities, imagined and real, that she’d had to endure at Court.) His lasting favor with Queen Anne was as much because of his unusual ability to listen to her — a woman!! — with respect and real interest, as for his diplomatic skills. His soliders adored him, for he treated them humanely, not just as warriors, and his only percieved flaw by his superiors was that on occassion he was too “soft” for the floggings and other harsh discipline of the seventeenth century army. He CRIED, for Heaven’s sake, and didn’t care who saw him do it.
    Most rare of all, I think, was his great relationships with his children. During the annual “off-season” for the European wars, he’d go back home to the country to be with them, playing and coddling and piggy-back-riding in a very Modern Dad way. From the children’s letters, it’s painfully clear that Sarah was one scary, demanding mother, while John was the one they loved without reserve, and the one, too, that they wrote to when they needed him to intercede with Sarah.
    So yeah, there’s historical proof that military heros needn’t be “point and grunt Neanderthals.”

    Reply
  12. Great post!! I read that article, too, Pat, and in irritated me no end. It not only feeds into every horrible gender sterotype, but also reinforces the worst preconceptions about romance: that it’s all a formula, Hero A with Heroine B, and happily ever after, yadadayada. And that article was in our national organization’s journal, yet.
    But enough irate tirades….
    Yes, Kalen, if there was ever a military man who broke that stereotype, it was John Churchill. No one ever doubted his bravery, his skill with pistol and sword, his genius at plotting battles and winnng entire wars.
    But he was also a total pussycat: his letters to Sarah are full of flowery, heartfelt endearments, and he wrote to her religiously, even in the middle of battle. (Her letters in return are much more practical, full of politics and finances and indignities, imagined and real, that she’d had to endure at Court.) His lasting favor with Queen Anne was as much because of his unusual ability to listen to her — a woman!! — with respect and real interest, as for his diplomatic skills. His soliders adored him, for he treated them humanely, not just as warriors, and his only percieved flaw by his superiors was that on occassion he was too “soft” for the floggings and other harsh discipline of the seventeenth century army. He CRIED, for Heaven’s sake, and didn’t care who saw him do it.
    Most rare of all, I think, was his great relationships with his children. During the annual “off-season” for the European wars, he’d go back home to the country to be with them, playing and coddling and piggy-back-riding in a very Modern Dad way. From the children’s letters, it’s painfully clear that Sarah was one scary, demanding mother, while John was the one they loved without reserve, and the one, too, that they wrote to when they needed him to intercede with Sarah.
    So yeah, there’s historical proof that military heros needn’t be “point and grunt Neanderthals.”

    Reply
  13. Sure, I love alpha heroes and any bad guys getting what’s coming to them, but I also love a simple love story with no outside influences, or smart brainy, nerdy men or women or any combo of the like. I’m not picky. LOL Well, just as long as they aren’t total wimps, but I really have not read any books like that, so that’s okay. 🙂
    Lois

    Reply
  14. Sure, I love alpha heroes and any bad guys getting what’s coming to them, but I also love a simple love story with no outside influences, or smart brainy, nerdy men or women or any combo of the like. I’m not picky. LOL Well, just as long as they aren’t total wimps, but I really have not read any books like that, so that’s okay. 🙂
    Lois

    Reply
  15. Sure, I love alpha heroes and any bad guys getting what’s coming to them, but I also love a simple love story with no outside influences, or smart brainy, nerdy men or women or any combo of the like. I’m not picky. LOL Well, just as long as they aren’t total wimps, but I really have not read any books like that, so that’s okay. 🙂
    Lois

    Reply
  16. This is a great topic, and writers that I read and continue to read sit on the limb with you and Mary Jo (and I do read you both).
    I’m not sure where the pressure is to “dumb down” dialog, but I like real characters with dialog spoken in a realistic way. Most people that I deal with on a daily basis don’t speak in commands.
    And I SO hope that you both are not alone on that limb!!

    Reply
  17. This is a great topic, and writers that I read and continue to read sit on the limb with you and Mary Jo (and I do read you both).
    I’m not sure where the pressure is to “dumb down” dialog, but I like real characters with dialog spoken in a realistic way. Most people that I deal with on a daily basis don’t speak in commands.
    And I SO hope that you both are not alone on that limb!!

    Reply
  18. This is a great topic, and writers that I read and continue to read sit on the limb with you and Mary Jo (and I do read you both).
    I’m not sure where the pressure is to “dumb down” dialog, but I like real characters with dialog spoken in a realistic way. Most people that I deal with on a daily basis don’t speak in commands.
    And I SO hope that you both are not alone on that limb!!

    Reply
  19. Well, I’m still waiting for my RWR to show up *g*, but as one who isn’t really a fan of the Alpha hero, I tend to agree with Pat. One difference I HAVE noticed when listening to men and women speak is that most men don’t qualify basic responses (“I think it may…”) etc, but there’s no doubt all men aren’t monosyllabic grunters all the time. A boring world it would be were it so.
    With my own heroes, who are generally gamma types, I balance between the grunts and the more lengthy speeches with a variety of words, flowery and more basic.

    Reply
  20. Well, I’m still waiting for my RWR to show up *g*, but as one who isn’t really a fan of the Alpha hero, I tend to agree with Pat. One difference I HAVE noticed when listening to men and women speak is that most men don’t qualify basic responses (“I think it may…”) etc, but there’s no doubt all men aren’t monosyllabic grunters all the time. A boring world it would be were it so.
    With my own heroes, who are generally gamma types, I balance between the grunts and the more lengthy speeches with a variety of words, flowery and more basic.

    Reply
  21. Well, I’m still waiting for my RWR to show up *g*, but as one who isn’t really a fan of the Alpha hero, I tend to agree with Pat. One difference I HAVE noticed when listening to men and women speak is that most men don’t qualify basic responses (“I think it may…”) etc, but there’s no doubt all men aren’t monosyllabic grunters all the time. A boring world it would be were it so.
    With my own heroes, who are generally gamma types, I balance between the grunts and the more lengthy speeches with a variety of words, flowery and more basic.

    Reply
  22. “One difference I HAVE noticed when listening to men and women speak is that most men don’t qualify basic responses (“I think it may…”) etc”
    Unless they’re dealing with a woman they KNOW they have to watch their step with. LOL! My poor dad is married to an Aries and has Aries and Cancer daughters. He couches his “commands” most carefully . . . My mom, on the other had, almost never qualifies her commands.

    Reply
  23. “One difference I HAVE noticed when listening to men and women speak is that most men don’t qualify basic responses (“I think it may…”) etc”
    Unless they’re dealing with a woman they KNOW they have to watch their step with. LOL! My poor dad is married to an Aries and has Aries and Cancer daughters. He couches his “commands” most carefully . . . My mom, on the other had, almost never qualifies her commands.

    Reply
  24. “One difference I HAVE noticed when listening to men and women speak is that most men don’t qualify basic responses (“I think it may…”) etc”
    Unless they’re dealing with a woman they KNOW they have to watch their step with. LOL! My poor dad is married to an Aries and has Aries and Cancer daughters. He couches his “commands” most carefully . . . My mom, on the other had, almost never qualifies her commands.

    Reply
  25. I didn’t read that RWR article, but I’ve seen advice elsewhere in RWA circles on how to write men, especially how to write men in deep POV, that seems to reduce the XY portion of the population to monosyllabic bundles of primal urges.
    But the thing is, probably 30-40% of my reading is by male authors, who are presumably experts on the male mindset and POV. And since THEIR heroes aren’t a bunch of inarticulate alpha cavemen, I don’t see why MINE need to be.

    Reply
  26. I didn’t read that RWR article, but I’ve seen advice elsewhere in RWA circles on how to write men, especially how to write men in deep POV, that seems to reduce the XY portion of the population to monosyllabic bundles of primal urges.
    But the thing is, probably 30-40% of my reading is by male authors, who are presumably experts on the male mindset and POV. And since THEIR heroes aren’t a bunch of inarticulate alpha cavemen, I don’t see why MINE need to be.

    Reply
  27. I didn’t read that RWR article, but I’ve seen advice elsewhere in RWA circles on how to write men, especially how to write men in deep POV, that seems to reduce the XY portion of the population to monosyllabic bundles of primal urges.
    But the thing is, probably 30-40% of my reading is by male authors, who are presumably experts on the male mindset and POV. And since THEIR heroes aren’t a bunch of inarticulate alpha cavemen, I don’t see why MINE need to be.

    Reply
  28. Jo here.
    WTG, Pat! I was complaining about this elsewhere just recently, and I haven’t read the RWR article yet.
    You’re absolutely right about men in the past. Some orators in Parliament could bring them all to tears. So we have men with the gift of complex speech and other men willing to show their emotions in public. This was considered normal. I think a man who seemed emotionless and terse would have been regarded with suspiciou.
    But I’d say it’s true now, too, and yes, these sorts of prescriptions are seeking to limit the characters in our fiction.
    Mind you, I do believe that the male and female brains are different, and science backs that up. There are exceptions, but taken as a whole men and womens approach problems differently and react differently to many things.
    Also, in today’s world men do tend to speak more assertively than women and women will very often phrase things as a possibility where a man would phrase it as a certainty, both meaning and intending the same thing. This, however, is social training not biology — assertive men are strong, assertive women are bitches and probably cold-hearted and frigid as well. A man who puts in modifiers and phrases suggestions as questions will probably be seen as a sissy and ignored.
    As people often have to live in the world around them, fitting in with expectations, it can even pay for men and women to speak the way they’re expected to, but it’s sad.
    I recommend everyone read WOMEN DON’T ASK. I’m not a wimp and some people have said I think like a man, but I could see myself in so many of the situations in that book. Yes, I cling to the belief that if I work hard rewards will come to me, that I won’t have to ask. Thank heavens for agents!
    Recommendations of articulate men in fiction. Dorothy Dunnett’s Lymond. Lois McMaster Bujold’s Miles Vorkosigan. Most of the heroes of the Wenches.
    Do readers accept more complexity and articulation (does that mean what I want it to mean?!?) in the past than in the present? What about future-set books? It would be particularly sad if we insist on keeping today’s patterns when envisioning the future.
    Jo 🙂

    Reply
  29. Jo here.
    WTG, Pat! I was complaining about this elsewhere just recently, and I haven’t read the RWR article yet.
    You’re absolutely right about men in the past. Some orators in Parliament could bring them all to tears. So we have men with the gift of complex speech and other men willing to show their emotions in public. This was considered normal. I think a man who seemed emotionless and terse would have been regarded with suspiciou.
    But I’d say it’s true now, too, and yes, these sorts of prescriptions are seeking to limit the characters in our fiction.
    Mind you, I do believe that the male and female brains are different, and science backs that up. There are exceptions, but taken as a whole men and womens approach problems differently and react differently to many things.
    Also, in today’s world men do tend to speak more assertively than women and women will very often phrase things as a possibility where a man would phrase it as a certainty, both meaning and intending the same thing. This, however, is social training not biology — assertive men are strong, assertive women are bitches and probably cold-hearted and frigid as well. A man who puts in modifiers and phrases suggestions as questions will probably be seen as a sissy and ignored.
    As people often have to live in the world around them, fitting in with expectations, it can even pay for men and women to speak the way they’re expected to, but it’s sad.
    I recommend everyone read WOMEN DON’T ASK. I’m not a wimp and some people have said I think like a man, but I could see myself in so many of the situations in that book. Yes, I cling to the belief that if I work hard rewards will come to me, that I won’t have to ask. Thank heavens for agents!
    Recommendations of articulate men in fiction. Dorothy Dunnett’s Lymond. Lois McMaster Bujold’s Miles Vorkosigan. Most of the heroes of the Wenches.
    Do readers accept more complexity and articulation (does that mean what I want it to mean?!?) in the past than in the present? What about future-set books? It would be particularly sad if we insist on keeping today’s patterns when envisioning the future.
    Jo 🙂

    Reply
  30. Jo here.
    WTG, Pat! I was complaining about this elsewhere just recently, and I haven’t read the RWR article yet.
    You’re absolutely right about men in the past. Some orators in Parliament could bring them all to tears. So we have men with the gift of complex speech and other men willing to show their emotions in public. This was considered normal. I think a man who seemed emotionless and terse would have been regarded with suspiciou.
    But I’d say it’s true now, too, and yes, these sorts of prescriptions are seeking to limit the characters in our fiction.
    Mind you, I do believe that the male and female brains are different, and science backs that up. There are exceptions, but taken as a whole men and womens approach problems differently and react differently to many things.
    Also, in today’s world men do tend to speak more assertively than women and women will very often phrase things as a possibility where a man would phrase it as a certainty, both meaning and intending the same thing. This, however, is social training not biology — assertive men are strong, assertive women are bitches and probably cold-hearted and frigid as well. A man who puts in modifiers and phrases suggestions as questions will probably be seen as a sissy and ignored.
    As people often have to live in the world around them, fitting in with expectations, it can even pay for men and women to speak the way they’re expected to, but it’s sad.
    I recommend everyone read WOMEN DON’T ASK. I’m not a wimp and some people have said I think like a man, but I could see myself in so many of the situations in that book. Yes, I cling to the belief that if I work hard rewards will come to me, that I won’t have to ask. Thank heavens for agents!
    Recommendations of articulate men in fiction. Dorothy Dunnett’s Lymond. Lois McMaster Bujold’s Miles Vorkosigan. Most of the heroes of the Wenches.
    Do readers accept more complexity and articulation (does that mean what I want it to mean?!?) in the past than in the present? What about future-set books? It would be particularly sad if we insist on keeping today’s patterns when envisioning the future.
    Jo 🙂

    Reply
  31. Melinda, I wish I knew what Carla is doing now, but I don’t. I adore her books.
    And thank heavens so many of our readers agree with me since I think most of the wenches may be into that assertive bitch thing upon occasion, and our males can still talk rings around us. “G”
    To be fair, the author of the article pointed out many of things mentioned in our comments. I just chose to point out the one that stuck in my craw. I’ve never, ever hung around men who were of the point and grunt variety, so I would never write about them. But yes, I’m aware that men and women can approach things differently—boy do they ever! And that’s what makes romance so much fun.
    Just don’t tell me my guys can’t talk in pretty phrases and that my gals have to be wishy-washy. Ain’t happenin’ unless it suits the character.

    Reply
  32. Melinda, I wish I knew what Carla is doing now, but I don’t. I adore her books.
    And thank heavens so many of our readers agree with me since I think most of the wenches may be into that assertive bitch thing upon occasion, and our males can still talk rings around us. “G”
    To be fair, the author of the article pointed out many of things mentioned in our comments. I just chose to point out the one that stuck in my craw. I’ve never, ever hung around men who were of the point and grunt variety, so I would never write about them. But yes, I’m aware that men and women can approach things differently—boy do they ever! And that’s what makes romance so much fun.
    Just don’t tell me my guys can’t talk in pretty phrases and that my gals have to be wishy-washy. Ain’t happenin’ unless it suits the character.

    Reply
  33. Melinda, I wish I knew what Carla is doing now, but I don’t. I adore her books.
    And thank heavens so many of our readers agree with me since I think most of the wenches may be into that assertive bitch thing upon occasion, and our males can still talk rings around us. “G”
    To be fair, the author of the article pointed out many of things mentioned in our comments. I just chose to point out the one that stuck in my craw. I’ve never, ever hung around men who were of the point and grunt variety, so I would never write about them. But yes, I’m aware that men and women can approach things differently—boy do they ever! And that’s what makes romance so much fun.
    Just don’t tell me my guys can’t talk in pretty phrases and that my gals have to be wishy-washy. Ain’t happenin’ unless it suits the character.

    Reply

Leave a Comment