Sitzbook: "The Catcher in the Rye" and "Animal Farm"

I was going to write "George Orwell's Animal Farm and J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye," but I guess that's pretty obvious for a caption.

This will be a quick glance at two books that I took from Angela when she wasn't looking. I think she got them for Christmas. They're both "classics" that you may have had to read in school (I know I did), but that mere fact shouldn't turn you off to either of them, since they're both great books. And they're also super-fast reads, ideal for a Sitzbook-like project.

Anyhow, I'd read these two books before, as I mentioned, and in fact I think I may have even read them both at least two times before. In the past I almost never reread a book since I always had so many unread ones that I wanted to get through, but now I'm starting to see the value in it. It's also interesting to see that I marked some passages in Angela's copy of Catcher in the Rye, but when I was going to enter them in my "Quotes" document, I realized that I'd already typed one of the same passages a few years ago, apparently --at least I'm consistent with my good taste!

I don't have much to say about George Orwell's Animal Farm since I actually read it just last year for Sitzbook, but that time it was in Spanish. This time it was back to the original English. It's still a good, concise parable, and I love trying to think back to my 8th grade Geography class to remember which group of people each animal character was supposed to represent. If you've not read Animal Farm or 1984 (also a masterpiece), then it's high time you did. Same with Catcher. These books have been analyzed and talked about countless times by countless people, so today I just wanted to throw in my two cents and mention that I liked them.

I'll also share a few quotes that I liked from Catcher in the Rye. The first two are by the book's narrator, Holden Caulfield. The first one is also the quote that I mentioned that I had marked in multiple version of the book. (As a side note, if I've read and marked multiple version of this book, and then forgotten that I read and marked them, doesn't that make me a bit psychotic like Mel Gibson's character in Conspiracy Theory?) Who cares --it's quote time:

"Finally, though, I got undressed and got in bed. I felt like praying or something, when I was in bed, but I couldn’t do it. I can’t always pray when I feel like it. In the first place, I’m sort of an atheist. I like Jesus and all, but I don’t care too much for most of the other stuff in the Bible. Take the Disciples, for instance. They annoy the hell out of me, if you want to know the truth. They were all right after Jesus was dead and all, but while He was alive, there were about as much use to Him as a hole in the head. All they did was keep letting him down. I like almost anybody in the Bible better than the Disciples. If you want to know the truth, the guy I like best in the Bible, next to Jesus, was that lunatic and all, that lived in the tombs and kept cutting himself with stones. I like him ten times as much as the Disciples, that poor bastard. I used to get in quite a few arguments about it, when I was at Whooton School, with this boy that lived down the corridor, Arthur Childs. Old Childs was a Quaker and all, and he read the Bible all the time. He was a very nice kid, and I liked him, but I could never see eye to eye with him on a lot of stuff in the Bible, especially the Disciples. He kept telling me that if I didn’t like the Disciples, then I didn’t like Jesus and all. He said that because Jesus picked the Disciples, you were supposed to like them. I said I knew He picked them, but that He picked them at random. I said He didn’t have time to go around analyzing everybody. I said I wasn’t blaming Jesus or anything. It wasn’t His fault that He didn’t have any time. I remember I asked old Childs if he thought Judas, the one that betrayed Jesus and all, went to Hell after he committed suicide. Childs said certainly. That’s exactly where I disagreed with him. I said I’d bet a thousand bucks that Jesus never sent old Judas to Hell. I still would, too, if I had a thousand bucks. I think any one of the Disciples would’ve sent him to Hell and all—and fast, too—but I’ll bet anything Jesus didn’t do it."

The second is one that hints at Holden's discontent with conformity and the possible life he may find himself leading in the future:

"I said no, there wouldn’t be marvelous places to go to after I went to college and all. Open your ears. It’d be entirely different. We’d have to go downstairs in elevators with suitcases and stuff. We’d have to phone up everybody and tell ‘em good-by and send ‘em postcards from hotels and all. And I’d be working in some office, making a lot of dough, and riding to work in cabs and Madison Avenue buses, and reading newspapers, and playing bridge all the time, and going to the movies and seeing a lot of stupid shorts and coming attractions and newsreels. Newsreels. Christ almighty. There’s always a dumb horse race, and some dame breaking a bottle over a ship, and some chimpanzee riding a goddam bicycle with pants on. It wouldn’t be the same at all. You don’t see what I mean at all."

Finally, here's a quote that I'd marked on a previous reading, but I also noticed it this time around. It's when Holden's old teacher, Mr. Antolini, is giving him advice about the future:

"'All right. Listen to me a minute now…I may not word this as memorably as I’d like to, but I’ll write you a letter about it in a day or two. Then you can get it all straight. But listen now, anyway.’ He started concentrating again. Then he said, ‘This fall I think you’re riding for—it’s a special kind of fall, a horrible kind. The man falling isn’t permitted to feel or hear himself hit bottom. He just keeps falling and falling. The whole arrangement’s designed for men who, at some time or other in their lives, were looking for something their own environment couldn’t supply them with. Or they thought their own environment couldn’t supply them with. So they gave up looking. They gave it up before they ever really even got started. You follow me?'"

So, dear reader, don't give up looking, whatever it is you're looking for!

Thanks for reading, and have a great day!

365: Picture a Day Project    365 Leftovers    All My Pictures    Sitzbook

The Last Cinematic Temptation of Sitzman?

Christ's Temptation, a mosaic in Monreale Cathedral. (Image Credit)

If anyone knows how to use Photoshop, would you mind putting a videotape in Satan's hand and sending a copy of the image back to me? Thanks a bunch!

Introduction

The title of this post doesn't make much sense, but it was hard to come up with a good one. I'll tell you right now that this post will be long, confused (and confusing), and possibly rambling and uninteresting. It'll also mention Religion, one of the Four Forbidden Topics for Polite Conversation (the other three being Politics, Sex, and Celine Dion, of course). You've been warned. I originally planned to hack out a review in 20 minutes, but I've been at this for like 7 or 8 hours over a few days now, as if this freaking blog post is gonna be my Magnum Opus or something. I even did research for this blog post-- Research! I was even joking with my brother that I'd have to provide an annotated bibliography for this post.

However, you don't have to read it if you don't want to; I won't take offense. But it is a good example of the beauty of a blog, in that it's like a modern-day journal. If I were writing this 20 years ago I would have just grappled with these questions in a diary, but today I can publish the convoluted ramblings of my inner monologue for the whole world to see! Actually, that's a lie. 20 years ago, if I had to actually write all this by hand in a journal or --God forbid!-- a typewriter, I probably just wouldn't have done it. I may have thought about these questions for approximately 5 minutes and then gone to play some more Castlevania.

Anyhow, let's do it to it.

Doing It To It

In the comments section of a recent post my brother Paul and I started talking a bit about religion and/or theology, and we joked that we should start a blog with a name like "Ryan n' Paul's Katekhism Korner" (cheesy names like that always need to change C's to K's, for some reason-- possibly to fulfill orthographic prophesy?). Well, we didn't do that, although we did start a "siblings blog" with our sister. But major theological questions remained unanswered, and they came up again recently. Last week while Andy was still visiting, he and I watched The Last Temptation of Christ on Netflix.

See, normally every year around Easter I like to watch Jesus Christ Superstar (aka JCS in this post) because it's one of my favorite movies. The songs are great, the acting is good, and overall it makes me reminiscent of my childhood, for whatever reason. But since Andy was also visiting during Easter last year, he'd already seen JCS. We decided that we'd check out Temptation since it was on Netflix, it was something new and different, and also because we'd both heard it was controversial. In fact, as I did a pit of poking around on the internet, I found out that apparently people even threw Molotov cocktails and burned down movie theaters in France to protest the movie. That kind of thing just makes you more interested! Plus, with Willem Dafoe as Jesus, Harvey Keitel --Harvey Keitel!!-- as Judas, and Martin Scorsese behind the camera, this movie just sounded too crazy and incredible to be true. Here's the trailer:

Leaving out our own personal religious convictions (or lack thereof), let's consider this movie a minute. First of all, Andy and I both liked it, inasmuch as you can like a movie that eventually ends with a person's brutal torture and state-sanctioned murder. In many ways the story is pretty traditional in the way it follows Jesus and the events near the end of his life: he recruits disciples, teaches people, pisses off people who misunderstand his message, meets with Pilate (played by David Bowie... in print, it looks like I'm lying, but yea, I pulleth not thy leg), and eventually gets condemned to death. It doesn't have the sweet songs that JCS has, but it does have a pretty kickin' soundtrack by Peter Gabriel. There are of course some differences, though, and naturally the differences are what make it more controversial than Superstar.

I suppose that since the movie came out in 1988, if you were ever going to see it, you probably already have, but let's make this official:

SPOILER ALERT! 

Sweet, I always wanted to do that.

OK, if you want to know why it's called "The Last Temptation of Christ," here's the deal: when Jesus is dying on the cross, a young girl comes to him and says that he's suffered enough, and that he doesn't have to die. If he wants, he can have a normal life as a normal person, and what follows is a sort of dream sequence in which we see Jesus get married, have a family, and live that normal life. In the dream (or possibly hallucination), he was never crucified. It's an interesting concept, especially when we see that the young girl was actually Satan, who had said that he'd tempt Jesus again. In the end, Jesus decides that he doesn't want that cop-out life, and suddenly he is back on the cross, where he dies after saying "It is accomplished." Pretty powerful stuff. The movie's now over, so cue the song by Peter Gabriel (whose name looks especially significant in this context, come to think of it).

I won't really get into all the theological implications of this film, since so many have done it better than I have; click here for a critical review from a Christian perspective, and here for Roger Ebert's defense of the film; both are very well-written and thought provoking. I will however mention the two biggest "sticking points" of the movie: 1) Jesus' humanity and, 2) Judas' role in the story.

Jesus' Humanity

Christianity teaches that Jesus was both completely human and completely divine. It also teaches that this concept is something we can't hope to wrap our minds around --that's a good thing, because I know I can't. The way the movie handles this is to focus almost entirely on Jesus' humanity. Possibly they saved the divinity aspect for the sequel? Anyhow, in this version, when Jesus is tempted, he has doubts. For the very devout who believe that Jesus never sinned, such mere doubts can of course be construed as blasphemy. In Temptation, Jesus seriously doubts if he's the son of God, and he's constantly second-guessing himself and his mission. The same doubts are seen to a lesser degree in Jesus Christ Superstar and even the Bible itself, when Jesus asks to avoid being crucified, if possible. I'm certainly not going to be the referee on this issue, but I can say that for me personally, the idea that Jesus could have had doubts about his mission is actually quite comforting and satisfying. If he were indeed truly human, then that helps us relate to him. Again, though, I can see both sides of the issue. If you believe one way or the other, I'm not going to be able to convince you to change your mind, and I wouldn't even want to try. But the other controversial aspect is a bit more open for debate.

Judas' Role

The Arrest of Christ (Kiss of Judas), Padua Chapel (Image)

This is a perennially controversial issue, so it's no surprise that this movie adds to the controversy. The crux of the issue seems to be this: in order for Jesus to die, he has to be betrayed by Judas. However, Judas was a disciple, one of those guys hand-picked by Jesus. Are we to believe that when it came down to it, Jesus was a lousy judge of character? Here's where the first question mark appears. If Jesus was truly divine, he obviously would have known what Judas' role would eventually be, so then we have to consider the question of why Judas betrayed Jesus, and whether it was even his own decision to make. 

Let me put it this way: if someone calls you "Judas," will you think it's a compliment? Of course not! His name is synonymous with betrayal. And indeed, in many depictions of Judas, he's evil incarnate, just aching to narc on Jesus and watch him be murdered. But that kind of "pure evil" argument just isn't satisfying, or at least it's not to me. It's the same argument that people sometimes make about really crappy people like Hitler or Stalin, but even with them the "evil" argument falls short; I'm certainly not trying to say they weren't terrible, horrible, no good, very bad people, but if we are able to simply say that someone is evil, to a certain extent it takes away that person's humanity, and that humanity is necessary for coming to terms with their actions.

It's the same with the famous "the Devil made him do it" argument. If that's true, then what happened to Judas' and Hitler's personal volition? If they were just pawns in a cosmic battle, then how much guilt can even be ascribed to them personally? Just try it: "Judas was evil, and that's why he betrayed Jesus, and Hitler was evil, so that's why he killed millions of people." See, doesn't it seem like something's missing? The "evil" argument bypasses any attempt to actually understand a person's motivations and actions, and essentially relegates that person to a semi-supernatural realm that we can't possibly comprehend. In the process, it also absolves us of having to try to understand that person and his motivations; since an abstract concept like "evil" can't be understood, we don't even have to try. But that just doesn't work for me. We can choose not to deal with the issue, but it won't actually go away. So how do we deal with Judas?

The depictions of Judas that I find most satisfying are in both Jesus Christ Superstar and The Last Temptation of Christ. The former is good first of all because Carl Anderson, the guy who played Judas, was an incredible singer. I mean, just check out these chops (He's pretty subtle, so in case you miss him, he's the guy in the white V-neck jumpsuit with the tassels, descending from a crane):

Secondly, Anderson's performance was also good because of the way he depicted Judas: in JCS, viewers feel that he actually deeply cared about Jesus and their message, but that Judas was too obsessed with the social and political realities of the day, and his misguided intentions to keep them on the "right path" led him to eventually betray Jesus. The whole film is about coming to terms with faith, but it seems to criticize blind faith. The song in the video above, "Superstar," is basically one big question mark with tassels. But that's exactly what I like about the movie. If your beliefs are so fragile that they can be knocked down with mere questions, then are they really worth believing in? As they say, it's complicated. But it's even more complicated in Temptation.

The way Harvey Keitel plays Judas, he's actually a good guy. He doesn't want to betray Jesus, but Jesus basically makes him do it because without the betrayal, the whole plan will fall through. Of all the disciples, he's also the only one that's not an absolute poser or dimwit (interestingly enough, just yesterday I read a passage in The Catcher in the Rye that has a pretty similar view of the disciples being a bunch of phonies - it's quote #4 in this link). Anyhow, in Temptation Judas betrays Jesus because he has to, not because he wants to. We'll never know Judas' real motivations, but this take is also interesting. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to believe Judas was the tragic hero he's shown to be in this movie, but if I had to choose between this narrative and the "Pure Evil" one, I think I'd take the Tragic Hero explanation.

Conclusion: Not Really A Conclusion

Like I said before, if you've already seen either of these movies, you likely have an opinion, and I'm not the one who's going to change or even challenge that opinion. I'm just saying that I "liked" these movies, and that I'm glad they exist. I think that anything that can question conventional thinking and make us think of why we have our previous assumptions and beliefs has the potential to be a good thing, and these films certainly do all of that.

So, have any of you seen this movie or read the novel it was based on? What are your thoughts, impressions, or reactions? I'd love to hear more ideas about this movie or the ideas behind it. Or you could also comment about JCS. I'm always up for talking shop about that movie, as long as you don't assert that the song "Pilate's Dream" is better than "What's the Buzz." If you say that kind of crazy, borderline- blasphemous crap, I'll know you're just trying to be provocative and controversial!

If you made it this far, you deserve a medal. Thanks for reading, and have a great day!

Oh, and just 10 minutes after I posted this, I came across this comic that somehow touched exactly what I was just talking/blathering about:

(Comic Credit)

Interesting. So the now the question is, was me finding this comic a mere coincidence, or divine intervention??

365: Picture a Day Project    365 Leftovers    All My Pictures    Sitzbook

Sitzbook: "2666" by Roberto Bolaño

Have you read 2666? If not, have you at least seen it? This book is huge. At two pages short of 900, it will possibly be the longest book I read this year. Yet despite its size, it's not actually "about" much. Also, for a "novel," it doesn't seem to be... well, like a novel. If you add in chapter names like "The Part About The Crimes," it almost seems like a big Spanish-y version of Seinfeld... in a book. It's almost its own genre, but what exactly that genre would be, I have no idea.

Don't get me wrong, though, the writing is great. I had never read anything by Bolaño before, but he definitely knew what he was doing (unfortunately he died a few years ago). Apparently his instructions to his heirs was to divide this book into five separate, smaller books, but they obviously didn't follow those instructions. That may have been a good or a bad thing. As it is, the book has a five parts that seem to be completely unconnected, save for a link to the fictional town of Santa Teresa on the Mexican-American border (apparently Santa Teresa is a stand-in for Ciudad Juárez).

A while ago I made it a rule to not read too much about a book before I actually read it, and in particular I try to avoid the back covers. Like movie trailers, they give away too much information, and I'd rather be surprised and not know what to expect when going in to a novel. In this book's case, I think I just got more confused. I obviously noticed that the city kept popping up, but other things didn't. For the first 161 pages we follow around some European literary critics in their daily lives. This sounds boring, but actually it's not. The thing that kind of bothered me was that after those 161 pages, we never see them again in the book. I guess if I had known a bit more about the book's structure, I might not have been annoyed, but that kind of side-swiped me.

The other sections are pretty different, too. One follows a professor; another ("The Part About Fate") follows a reporter from the U.S. named "Fate"; the next, and unfortunately also the longest, is about the grisly murders of hundreds of women in the city; and the final part is about a German boy growing up around World War I. That sounds completely off-topic, but it eventually gets there. I guess it's a testament to Bolaños' abilities that he could convincingly write about things as disparate as boxing, literary criticism, and daily life in the Soviet Union under German occupation. It's just strange that all the topics end up in the same book, though.

Maybe my problem is that I should have read it in Spanish? Apparently Bolaños, who was born in Chile but lived much of his life in Mexico and other countries, had a particularly interesting way of mixing slang and even inventing new words when writing. I actually saw a Spanish version at the bookstore (a Barnes and Noble in Fort Collins), but it was a bit more expensive, and I hate the way Spanish books deal with quotation marks (there can be up to three different kinds, all confusing, and it's hard to even tell who's talking). That sounds like a trivial detail but believe me, after a few hundred pages, it's not.

Anyhow, I'm getting off topic. The book was good, but I have to say that it leaves you hanging, and the ending isn't that satisfactory. If you don't mind that, then the book could be for you, but if you like your novels with a clear beginning and end, with a logical plot progression in between, then you may want to check out something different.

So, as is my custom in these reviews, I wanted to end with a few quotes I liked from the book. It was hard to find any ones that were typical that weren't really long or confusing due to lack of context, but these two will have to do:

(From p. 528, describing a family's experience after meeting with police to report a missing girl):

“Despondent, she went back to her house, to the other neighbor woman and the girls, and for a while the four of them experienced what it was like to be in purgatory, a long, helpless wait, a wait that begins and ends in neglect, a very Latin American experience…”

And this one, from p. 114, demonstrates the book's long-sentenced style, as well as its breadth of knowledge and strange humor:

“The first impression the critics had of Amalfitano was mostly negative, perfectly in keeping with the mediocrity of the place, except that the place, the sprawling city in the desert, could be seen as something authentic, something full of local color, more evidence of the often terrible richness of the human landscape, whereas Amalfitano could only be considered a castaway, a carelessly dressed man, a nonexistent professor at a nonexistent university, the unknown soldier in a doomed battle against barbarism, or, less melodramatically, as what he ultimately was, a melancholy literature professor put out to pasture in his own field, on the back of a capricious and childish beast that would have swallowed Heidegger in a single gulp if Heidegger had had the bad luck to be born on the Mexican-U.S. border.”

So, it nearly took me as long to write this review as it took me to read the book, but there you have it! Has anyone else read this, by chance? If so, please chime in in the comments. 

Thanks for reading, and have a great week!

365: Picture a Day Project    365 Leftovers    All My Pictures    Sitzbook

Sitzbook: "Bicycle Diaries" by David Byrne

A boy and his bike and his book.

I read this book quickly (in less than a day) because Andy brought it with him during his visit, and he had mentioned it was good. However, he was borrowing it himself so if I wanted to read it, I'd have to get through it quickly. And I did.

The book is a series of reflections by David Byrne, the lead singer of Talking Heads. He's also a bicycling enthusiast, but he's my kind of bicycling enthusiast, which is to say that he's not really a hardcore, sporty biker but rather a laid-back, "using a bike to discover new places"- type of biker. I'm not much of a biker myself, especially since the mountain town I live in has only one road that's really steep in parts and doesn't lead to anywhere worth going to. But I like Byrne's thoughts and philosophy, which he shares with us as he rides through Berlin (the real one, not the one I live in), Istanbul, New York, San Francisco, and many other cities.

Another good thing about the book is that it's hardly about bicycling. It comes up incidentally in many of the sections, since he comments on how easy or difficult it is to get around by bike in some of these places, but he's more likely to talk about regional culture, history, art, or, probably most commonly, city planning. That's what makes this book such a fast read, since each little section is only a couple of pages. He'll talk about Argentinean music for a few pages, but before you know it, he's exploring Manila and talking about the history of Imelda Marcos.

It's a good book and I'd certainly recommend it, especially if Andy happens to be staying at your house any time soon. Just contact him to schedule a visit and a book-loaning.

Here are some quotes I liked from the book:

Page 44:

"In the New World it is assumed that there will always be more land over the horizon, so sustainable cultivation and conservation are often viewed as namby-pamby. I suppose a lot of Russia and the former Soviet republics are like this too, which might explain a thing or two. Maybe that's why lots of North Americans feel that the whole world has to be tamed and brought under control while Europeans, having more or less achieved that control in their own lands, feel a duty to nurture and manage rather than simply subdue. Industrialization and agricultural subjugation throughout much of Europe is now a thing of the past--its legacy a nasty memory of polluted rivers and blackened skies, many of which are now being cleaned up, sort of."

On page 284, Byrne mentions a presentation by Enrique Peñalosa the former mayor of Bogotá, who helped initiate bike- and pedestrian-friendly projects in the city.  Peñalosa says:

"A place without sidewalks privileges the automobile, and therefore the richer people in cars have more rights; this is undemocratic." 

Byrne continues talking about the former mayor:

"Peñalosa tends to link equality, in all its forms, with democracy--a connection that is anathema to many in the United States. In his own words, 'In developing-world cities, the majority of people don't have cars, so I will say, when you construct a good sidewalk, you are constructing democracy. A sidewalk is a symbol of equality... If democracy is to prevail, public good must prevail over private interest.'" 

So, that's it for now. Thanks for reading, and have a great day!

And thanks to Andy for visiting-- and posing for some pictures!

365: Picture a Day Project    365 Leftovers    All My Pictures    Sitzbook

Sitzbook: "Life on the Mississippi" by Mark Twain

I had borrowed this book from Andy a year ago and since he came back to visit, I decided it was high time I read it so I could return it to him.

The book is not a novel, but rather a collection of personal stories and musings from Mark Twain's younger days, when he was still known as Samuel Clemens. There is a lot of stuff about steamboats, which I have to say isn't particularly interesting for me. I guess I'm not much of a shiphead. So some of the 290-some pages do drag on a bit. But as Andy noted, Twain's great writing generally makes up for it. 

There are many stories about Twain learning how to pilot a steamboat, and the amount of knowledge a pilot had to keep in his head really was staggering. He includes some quips such as this one on page 29:

"Presently [the pilot training Twain] turned on me and said: 'What's the name of the first point above New Orleans?' I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know."

I have to admit that I even chuckled out loud a few times while reading this book, but if you're looking to get into Twain, I'd certainly say you should check out his novels first, Huckleberry Finn being an obviously good first pick.

Thanks for reading, and have a good weekend! 

365: Picture a Day Project    365 Leftovers    All My Pictures    Sitzbook

Netfun on the Interweb

Here's some butterfly goodness for you.

As usual, I've been blogging and making the internet bigger. You may have heard about my new website, Costa Rica Outsider. It's actually pretty fancy. I've written a few articles there, including one with tips to distinguish between Costa Rica and Puerto Rico, and one about when the President of Costa Rica came to Berlín. I just posted one about semana santa, or Easter week in Costa Rica. If you're interested in Costa Rica (or if you live here), then please check it out and/or "Like" it on Facebook.

Speaking of semana santa, you can read this post from 2008 to see how the crucifixion is a pretty big deal here, but the resurrection just isn't as interesting or as bloody.

Finally, I've been making a lot of improvements and more frequent posts on Sitzman ABC, my language-learning blog. It's good if you're learning English, but hopefully interesting even if you're not. Please also feel free to check it out and/or "Like" it on Facebook.

Thanks for reading this blog, and any of the others mentioned above. Have a great day!

365: Picture a Day Project    365 Leftovers    All My Pictures    Sitzbook

March 2012 Pictures of the Day

My computer is still on the fritz but Angela let me use hers to upload the rest of my March Pictures of the Day. Check them out if you'd like:

As usual, I'm still doing Leftovers (but not as many as in some months), and taking pictures for the yearly 366-picture project and for Sitzbook reviews, so you're welcome to check those pictures out, too.

Thanks for reading, and have a great rest of the weekend!

365: Picture a Day Project    365 Leftovers    All My Pictures    Sitzbook