sistermagpie | The Screwtape Twins

Current Mood: curious

Entry tags:

The Screwtape Twins

I was just reading

narcissam's thread on When Character Hate Goes Bad and this side topic came up that seems like an interesting thing to get other people's opinions on.

It comes out of the common conversation about the twins' antics, beginning with:

Might they be people who go too far on the other side, a la Crouch, Sr.? Maybe, but they really aren't that serious about anything. Nor will they ever be consciously evil--they're careless and thoughtless, and have an occasionally cruel streak, but they aren't out trying to destroy things and hurt people.

And is followed up by another poster with:

I've seen the argument about F&G being as or more evil than Voldemort before, and I just turned away shaking my head. Thanks for spelling it out; and word on the rest of what you said too.

Now, frankly I'm not so sure the twins aren't that serious about anything--I think at times they are. I don't think they'd ever be consciously evil, but then...not many people are motivated by the urge to be consciously evil. I also in general always think it's silly to compare one character to another in general in this way--like by saying Fred and George are "more evil" than Voldemort, as if evil is something we can really measure that way, and being more or less evil than another person has any bearing on who you are. People can do damage all sorts of ways besides setting out to cause damage. But I'm not really thinking here on how Fred and George will ultimately be used in the series, though. I'm not sure how they will be. When Harry is revolted by his father and Sirius' treatment of Snape he says he had thought they were like Fred and George, indicated *he* sees a big difference between them, but that line could just as easily be signaling to us that they are alike in a negative way (perhaps Fred and George won't get the wake-up call James did, for instance).

The question I thought was interesting, though, was how much one's motivation would matter in this kind of situation, especially to the victim? In general I do think motivation is important--very much so. But you get into a sticky area with motivation when it comes to things like jokes, because what's the motivation, exactly? It's not really accurate to say the twins aren't intentionally hurting people because often they are intentionally hurting people, they're just dong it out of something other than personal malice. In the series, for instance, Fred and George have intentionally caused people to break out in boils, given somebody something to choke them, thrown hexes at them (in fact, twice from behind, I think), and caused one person long-term brain damage. They've also just made people feel silly, stuck a firecracker in a salamander, whacked a puffskein with a bat (iirc), and given somebody arachnophobia.

What I said on the other thread was this:

What does it mean to say they're not out to destroy things and hurt people? I mean, sometimes they are out to do hurt or destroy and even when they're not, if you were hurt by someone would you really feel better about it if they were just kidding around rather than intentionally trying to hurt you? Because I'm not sure I would. That might just add a layer of humiliation to it as well. It's a really awful feeling to have someone do something that hurts or humiliates you, or destroys something you care about, and then feel pressured to laugh at it because otherwise you don't have a sense of humor. At least with a mean bully you might get some sympathy. With the joker bully you have to hear how he's a great guy!

Like I said, I'm thinking of this more in real world terms, but Fred and George maybe make a good jumping off point, because it seems like sometimes people are dismissive of readers who have a truly negative reaction to them, thinking those readers just don't "get it" when in fact they maybe do get it and just can't help but identify with the person who's the butt of their pranks.

This subject probably wouldn't be complete without C.S.Lewis' thoughts on the subject, from The Screwtape Letters. Happily,

pharnabazus was nice enough to quote the exact passage today in another thread, so I can just cut and paste it:

"The real use of Jokes or Humour is in quite a different direction, and it is specially promising among the English who take their "sense of humour" so seriously that a deficiency in this sense is almost the only deficiency at which they feel shame. Humour is for them the all-consoling and (mark this) the all-excusing, grace of life. Hence it is invaluable as a means of destroying shame. If a man simply lets others pay for him, he is "mean"; if he boasts of it in a jocular manner and twits his fellows with having been scored off, he is no longer "mean" but a comical fellow. Mere cowardice is shameful; cowardice boasted of with humorous exaggerations and grotesque gestures can be passed off as funny. Cruelty is shameful-unless the cruel man can represent it as a practical joke. A thousand bawdy, or even blasphemous, jokes do not help towards a man's damnation so much as his discovery that almost anything he wants to do can be done, not only without the disapproval but with the admiration of his fellows, if only it can get itself treated as a Joke. And this temptation can be almost entirely hidden from your patient by that English seriousness about Humour. Any suggestion that there might be too much of it can be represented to him as "Puritanical" or as betraying a "lack of humour"."

Pranks are often very important in stories where characters were at school together in just this way. Pranksters often wind up getting stalked and terrorized by victims of their funny jokes. Nero Wolfe dealt with the aftermath in "The League of Frightened Gentlemen." HP has already dealt with it with Sirius' Prank on Sirius. HP appears to have given us a prank with an even more serious result with Montague, but it's not really addressed.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

No, it makes you a dupe.

Percy supported his superior at the Ministry. He *always* supports an authority figure. At school, it was Dumbledore. At the Ministry, it was first Crouch and then Fudge.

He is frightfully willing to be a sheep, but then so are most of the people in the Wizarding World.

Percy is also the one who noticed Ginny was upset in CoS, and the one who jumped in to help Ron out of the lake after Harry rescued him in GoF. He loves his family, he just disagrees with them completely about what is important.

If the rules are wrong and cruel, does following them unquestioningly make you a "good" person?

No, it doesn't neccessarily make you good. If you haven't examined your motives, you're not 'good', you're just compliant.

However, if the rules are wrong and cruel, does breaking them unquestionally make you a good person?

But I really do think that a great deal of hunger for recognition that is such a basic part of Ron's character is due to the fact that he has been deliberately denied that recognition from his mother.

You know, I never thought about it that way, but aww, you have a point.
*Hugs Ron*

That scene with Neville laughing along with the rest of the kids, having just been turned into a Canary, is kind of interesting, because it is an excellent proof of the twins being bullies -the kind of popular bullies who get away with everything due to their charm, and they manage to discredit anyone daring to get hurt by their making fun of them, by having that be all about that person not having any sense of humour. It makes sense to me, actually, that Neville realises this and plays along; he knows he will be recognised as "part of the group" if he gives his assent to these people making fun of him, and so he gives it, not because he really thinks it's funny, but because hurt pride is a small price to pay (for him) for the sense of belonging. Otoh, there is no such price when it comes to Draco putting a leg-locker curse on him; Draco doesn't expect Neville to laugh with him, and he will keep looking down on him no matter how he (Neville) reacts, and so, Neville can afford to really feel that blow to his pride and self-worth when this happens. Incidently, I think it's the Fred and George-type of bullying that will really make a number on Neville's self-esteem in the long-run, because it's (IMO) essential to let yourself feel hurt when someone hurts you.

I didn't get the impression that Fudge *summoned* a Dementor in to give Crouch Jr. the Kiss. After all, Minerva was right there, witnessed the whole thing, and yet only accused Fudge of bringing the Dementor with him and letting it get out of control.

Fudge is admittedly obstructionistic, but that seems to me to be his reaction to Dumbledore's (apparent) attempt to expand his power base, from Fudge's POV.

That Percy is following the Ministry blindly is not a good sign, for me.

I'm not happy with the lad either. He doesn't think critically about those with authority. But that seems to be failing in his family, because his parents and brothers are certainly falling right in line with Dumbledore in OotP, with vary little critical review of Dumbledore's methods and modes of operation.

No, it makes you a dupe.

Percy supported his superior at the Ministry. He *always* supports an authority figure. At school, it was Dumbledore. At the Ministry, it was first Crouch and then Fudge.

I suspect we're supposed to notice how Percy changed his view of Dumbledore from "best wizard in the world" (PS/SS) to "best avoided, Harry, I have to say" (OotP). The last is paraphrased, as I don't have my copy of OotP with me. However, it is a 180-degree turn which suggests that Percy doesn't have any firm opinions of his own, he'll just go along with the group he perceives to be "in charge". This isn't a good sign.

He is frightfully willing to be a sheep, but then so are most of the people in the Wizarding World.

Does that make him any better? Should he be called to account for supporting Umbridge, would an argument of "Everyone else went along with it!" serve to justify him? Depends - we might just cut him some slack, as he's so young - but we all know that "sheep mentality" isn't the highest one can aim for in life.

Percy is also the one who noticed Ginny was upset in CoS, and the one who jumped in to help Ron out of the lake after Harry rescued him in GoF. He loves his family, he just disagrees with them completely about what is important.

Well, to be fair Percy seemed just as concerned that she was going to let out his secret (that Ginny caught him kissing Penelope Clearwater) as he did about her personally, but that's a very good point about Percy rushing down to the water to see how Ron was. Perhaps that will ultimately redeem him in spite of his current record!

If the rules are wrong and cruel, does following them unquestioningly make you a "good" person?

No, it doesn't neccessarily make you good. If you haven't examined your motives, you're not 'good', you're just compliant.

However, if the rules are wrong and cruel, does breaking them unquestionally make you a good person?

Nice one! :-) I wish we could see an example of the Twins breaking a rule which ended up having serious, long-term consequences. Some amazing sixth-sense (or authorial wish) has ensured that every time F&G break a school rule it turns out to have harmless or positive consequences. Rather like much of Harry's career, in fact, where the only harmful mistake was the Occlumency business (and even that mistake can be put down to Dumbledore in the end). JKR does seem to like her rebels.

I didn't get the impression that Fudge *summoned* a Dementor in to give Crouch Jr. the Kiss. After all, Minerva was right there, witnessed the whole thing, and yet only accused Fudge of bringing the Dementor with him and letting it get out of control.

Well, both Snape and Minerva give an account, and their words are:

SNAPE: "When we told Mr Fudge we had caught the Death Eater responsible for tonight's events, he seemed to feel his personal safety was in question. He insisted on summoning a Dementor to accompany him into the castle. He brought it up to the office where Barty Crouch -"

MINERVA: "The moment that - that thing entered the room, it swooped down on Crouch and -"

Now Snape's tone ("seemed to feel that", "insisted on") sounds more than a little cynical as to Fudge's motives for bringing the Dementor with him. With good reason: why bring a Dementor as a bodyguard when you're already in the company of one or two teachers and the Death Eater in question is already bound and imprisoned? Furthermore, Minerva's words suggest not so much that it got out of control as that it picked its target and swooped instantaneously. Which suggests that it was given orders previously, doesn't it? We know Dementors follow orders, we saw that when Umbridge "sent" Dementors to Harry's home. I think it's fairly clear from that and Dumbledore's reaction ("He was staring hard at Fudge, as if seeing him plainly for the first time") that Fudge fully intended Crouch's mind to be wiped. Whether Fudge did it as a favour to Lucius, or whether he did it from ostensibly public-spirited motives ("mustn't cause a panic! Wipe his mind and the whole thing will go away quietly!") is something we will probably find out later on.

I call highly suspicious, however.

Fudge is admittedly obstructionistic, but that seems to me to be his reaction to Dumbledore's (apparent) attempt to expand his power base, from Fudge's POV.

By sending The Boy Who Lived to Azkaban and ensuring that your spy refuses to teach the kids how to practice magic? Nice one Fudge! :-) He's either evil or so incompetent that he's a gift to the Dark Side.

I'm not happy with the lad either. He doesn't think critically about those with authority. But that seems to be failing in his family, because his parents and brothers are certainly falling right in line with Dumbledore in OotP, with very little critical review of Dumbledore's methods and modes of operation.

Well, when you have a polarization of "Dumbledore versus Umbridge" in your school, you have two very clear choices. If they didn't have to think long and hard about it, it might just be because it was an easy decision to make.

The Dursleys started it by mistreating an innocent baby and shutting Harry in a cupboard for much of his childhood.

That's not really something Dudley can be held responsible for, though, imho.
The WW does seem to have a worrying tendency to visit the sins of the fathers on the children: witness first reactions to Harry, Malfoy and Dudley just for starters.

Wow. That turned into a lot of different things.

I think calling F&G "more evil" than Voldemort is misleading and kind of dumb. The two things aren't comparable and I'm not comfortable with the word in the first place. I think this might arise from feeling more visceral about F&G. These are people you might have known. Voldemort can be compared to Stalin and Hitler, but this is kind of abstract and besides that, we aren't really sure what he's up to and we rarely see him.

But I think both Voldemort and F&G have a total disregard for other people--maybe even the same kind of disregard. Voldemort things others can be squashed to suit his purposes, F&G think other people's suffering doesn't really matter. You mentioned that if you're suffereing and someone tells you it's a joke, then it's like you've been erased (not what you said but it's in there somewhere). But the same kind of thing is there in the grand schemes of dictators--the people just don't matter.

It's true, though, that the Wizarding World is a dangerous place and the damage F&G do isn't really remarkable considering what can happen to a student just in class. Also, not just F&G but everybody has no concept of psychological damage. So you can sort of see why they never learned better. But then why isn't everyone like them? The fact remains that they enjoy humiliating people (even if the physical damage is usually reparable) and everyone does comprehend humiliation.

I very much dislike the idea that everyone they hit deserved it, even if just by divine authoral intervention. I don't think they have an unconscious evil meter and just hit the bad guys. I do think, though, that they have a sense of sides and attack harsher on people their friends don't like. I think that mostly they just like being irrepressable. They like feeling free like they can do anything, they like seeing their fingerprints on the world. In their minds they are rebels, scorning rules and courtesy.

A while back I had a conversation with a friend about humor that degenerated into a bad fight. he mentioned the idea that humor basically means a lack of empathy, and that perhaps this is it's purpose, so we don't feel too badly all the time. I hate that. Not all laughter is like that, not all humor is like that.

no_remorse obliquely referred to an incident about teenagers doing something horrible to someone, filming it, and showing it to their friends who also found it hilarious. It's things like that which had started my train of thought in the first place which is why I kind of exploded on my friend during our discussion. Because I think things like that piss me off more than Stalin. Even if that shouldn't be, even if Stalin does more damage. Stalin is coldly doing his job. he's terrifying, and he's evil, but someone the disregarding laughter of these teenagers seems worse. Stalin at least sort of knows what he's doing. He probably had all kinds of justifying arguments to himself and perhaps he slept well at night. But these teenagers... they probably don't think about it at all. It's the dumbfounded surprise when you attempt to tell them they're cruel. And they laugh. Somehow that makes it worse. Stalin looks at you and sees a grain of sand to be ground under his wheel. That feels pretty bad... but the teenagers look at you and actually see you on an immediate scale, actually look at you personally, and yet you're still nothing but a fly they pull the wings off of. Somehow that's far worse. Stalin, in a way, is blind. You're a disregarded nothing in the river of history, and that sucks a lot, but it's different from someone walking right up to you and telling you that you're nothing at all.

Blah need another comment.

(con't)

Now F&G aren't that bad. There's a limit to what they'll do, and we can bicker about where that limit is and the difference between where it falls in our world and the Wizarding World. But they're still structurally the same. They don't endanger anyone's life. They don't permenantly maim people. But they don't really care about what they do do to people, and you still run into that same blank "huh?" at the idea that they're doing anything wrong, and you still get that same laughter.

Pisses me off. I don't think it's more evil than Voldemort. I don't even think that as a force in the world humorous arrested development malice is more evil than ends-justify-means dictatorship. But it pisses me off more viscerally. And I can see how someone might sigh and say they're the same thing in the end.

In fact they've been in training as mavericks ever since we first met them. Going up against molly is good training for going up against "authorities" like Umbridge.

Still doesn't make it *right* and it did have the effect of giving her an excuse to be even more harsh with the kids she was able to "catch".

And why did Fudge summon a Dementor? It was an arrest, not an execution. The ww has been at peace for a decade and the news that Voldemort is back hasn't escaped yet. Even captured DEs are entitled to a form of trial.

Azkaban escapees are not.We saw that precedent in the previous book. All an Azkaban escapee is entitled to is the Kiss.

And just who was sent to fetch Fudge and an Auror to take Crouch into custody, Hm? Someone who I am pretty sure was also at the graveyard meeting and as soon as Harry escaped was sent back to perform damage control. And boy howdy did he perform damage control!

All Snape had to do was whisper to Fudge "Escaped from Azkaban." and a Dememtor was assured. Fudge is a patsy. He was played.

Umbridge went behind his back to send out those Demetors to get Harry expelled at least, and possibly permanently out of everyone's hair at most (she didn't know the kid could cast a Partonus). She admits as much when she catches him in the office trying to contact Sirius.

Actually, Percy is a lot *like* Fudge in his bad judgement of other people's motives and his willingness to let himself be jerked around. Unless there is more to the picture than Rowling is overtly showing us.

HRH watch Montague's parents coming into the school because he's still "confused and disoriented," and apparently under Madame Pomfrey's care. As far as I can tell, this is three to four weeks *after* he was found stuck in the toilet.

To their rather strong discredit, HRH have a conversation in which they decide not to tell Madame Pomfrey what happened, even if it might help her cure him, and considering the possibility that he might never recover. The reasons for *not* telling her include, "Course not, he'll recover" (said indifferently), "More trouble for Umbridge," and "He shouldn't have tried to take all those points from Gryffindor." The books' pranksters certainly don't have a monopoly on casual cruelty among the "good guys." I agree that the Wizarding World's standards of cruelty are different (as argued in various points in this thread), but that hardly lets them off the hook.

I agree with your last comment, but then, where's the fun in that? I assure you, I get far nastier with fictional characters than real people. It's safer, for one thing. As for the TTT incident, Arthur should have that awareness and forethought, yes, but he doesn't (an entirely different set of flaws). Fred and George are 16, plenty old enough to be responsible for their own actions.

I've discussed my issues with the pigtail incident at length in a variety of threads on Hagrid; as it's not intended a joke, it didn't seem quite relevant here. It's hardly surprising that the Dursleys hate magic and everything associated with it at this point, is it? Of course, their hatred goes much further back, but with all the parallels, it seems reasonable that Petunia was (at least) once the victim of some terribly funny prank by MWPP -- or Lily (teacups and frog spawn, anyone?). Insert standard disclaimer that this doesn't in any way excuse their treatment of Harry, blah blah blah, still horrible, blah blah, responsible for their own actions, too.

I hope to get a chance to read the essay later, but quickly, what on earth is convenient about his disorientation? Just the fact that it gets Snape out of the room? Because I have a hard time seeing that whole incident as a plot device, when there are dozens of less nasty possibilities.

Interesting discussion. I have a lot of thoughts, but will restrain myself to a few so not to monster post.

This question "If the rules are wrong and cruel, does following them unquestioningly make you a "good" person?" is key.

And on this topic I've always been fascinated by explanation (though not entirely agreeing with it) put forth by Henry V's Welsh retainer in the Shakespeare play of the same name who put forth the explanation that so far as the soldiers following their latter into battle, it is irrelevent if the cause they are fighting (and dying) for is just. What is of chief importance is that their loyalty and service to their King is just and this alone blots out any problems with the cause. On the other hand, as for the King... well, the King must answer for and take responsibility for the justice of the cause... but not those that follow him. Their duty is clear.

Of course this reasoning taken too far will only get you "we were just following orders" to the Allies at the concentration camp gates during WWII. This reasoning abandoned entirely and you get anarchy.

And it seems like the Harry Potter world is poised squarely between two poles. You have rigid authority imposed by the Malfoy family mindset and the extreme control measures of the Uxbridges on the one hand and the chaos and lack of discipline over either magic or one's desires as evidenced by others: Hagrid, Neville Longbottom... and The Twins.

Which in some strange way may be the point. I haven't gone and checked against all the books (yet), but my hypothesis is that the more heavy handed the laws and regulations become, the more tyrannical and puffed up the leadership, the more Rowling finds it necessary it is to have some fools on hand armed with pins. Whether any of this is meant to be chuckle producing funny, not to mention wondering how much justification makes it okay to cause pain to another is an interesting different and actually much broader question. But I think that if you are able to view The Twins as plot devices first and everything else second it makes their behavior much more palatable.

Or perhaps I just had too much green beer yesterday....

My reading of the Occlumency business is that the whole Pensieve sequence was a set-up. Snape set it up to give himself a good reason to throw Harry out and not be expected to teach him.

He set up the possibility of that particular escape clause up from the beginning of the whole business, but so long as Harry was completely hopeless at it he didn't see any reason to push the issue. And besides, he was probably very happy to have the boy at his mercy.

But once he broke through Shape's shield -- and after rereading the scene where that happened with a bit more attention I am NOT convinced that it was *Harry* who broke through that shield -- then he had to go. Rowling burries us in minutia between that scene and the next Occlumency lesson, so that it isn't clear how much time passed between them, but I am beginning to suspect that it was indeed the very *next* lesson, and it was certainly the first one after Dumbledore was out of the way.

If I am right, then the memories in the Pensieve that evening were *not* the same ones that had been in it all the evenings before, and if Malfoy hadn't shown up so conveniently with the news of Montegue's reappearance, Snape would have found some other way of being called out of the room before the lesson got well underway.

But I am *really* suspicious about that oh-so-convenient reappearance. And I also suspect an Obliviate.

Except that they're actually superior to most of what goes on, because whilst the HPverse's cruelty is often random and unwarranted, JKR has written the Twins as meting out Prank Justice to those who objectively deserve it.

Look at the list of their victims:

[snipping list of "objectively deserving" victims]

I'd like to know what Ron did to "objectively deserve" having his pet puffskein Bludgered to death by Fred. I've asked this question to several Twins defenders, but they do not seem interested in answering. Perhaps you will. What could their "inbuilt Evil Detectors" have found objectionable about "a docile creature" that eats leftovers, spiders, and bogies/boogers?

If her exposition fairy is allowed to define attempted murder (The Prank) as "stupid trick"

I hope that the exposition fairy will visit us and tell us what the hell actually happened, from the standpoint of simple event sequence. Unless there's some kind of recorded evidence present we don't exactly have full access to motivations for a number of the parties involved anymore, either. What is this one set of events that is deliberately presented as a "stupid trick" from one perspective and "attempted murder" from another? Does a third perspective (Dumbledore's) fall somewhere in the middle to make his actions (and we don't know whether he did anything or what he did; argument from absence in this series is weak) intelligible?

That, everyone, is why Prank threads aren't much fun.

That's a strong reading, but one can read it just as strongly as the kind of joke made in good faith. There are pranks that you are willing to play on outsiders, but there are pranks that you will only do to people you have a certain consideration for. The good humor on the part of the recipient is then not sullen acquiescence that gives over pride, but a gesture of accepting the overture.

There are ways I have played pranks on my friends. They are decidedly different than the ways I would like to prank the secret societies. Neville's self-esteem doesn't seem to be suffering at present (although it sure was interesting to read Elkins pre-OotP read on Neville and see how pretty much everything she feared came to happen).

I got a kick out of the comment over elsewhere about the nasty evil swamp of the Twins and their inconsiderate behavior towards other students in making it. But then I thought the image of Filch punting students over it was hilarious, which means I'm having a laugh fun at the expense of his feelings and kicking ability. :)

And, of course, a little research tells me that 'punt' does not mean what the general American usage of such does in this situation. Sigh. I hate it when that happens. Yet the point stands that the professoriate allowed the swamp to remain...

Besides, the mental image of Filch drop-kicking students is so much better than boating them across. ;-)

Even captured DEs are entitled to a form of trial.

Sirius Black very specifically did NOT get a trial. He was tossed into Azkaban as a DE post haste.

And why did Fudge summon a Dementor? It was an arrest, not an execution. [...]

All an Azkaban escapee is entitled to is the Kiss.

Barty Crouch Jr. *was* an Azkaban escapee. No one denied that, so why are you saying that Snape set the idea of the Kiss into Fudge's mind?

I'm not sure about your other points -- perhaps you could break them up so that the ones that aren't related to each other are in different comments?

And more in character for Filch, to boot.

They don't endanger anyone's life.

Dudley. If he'd panicked during the Ton Tongue Toffee prank, he could have chocked to death on his own tongue.

They don't permenantly maim people.

Montague. We don't know that he's permenantly-for-the-rest-of-his-life brain damaged, but his confusion and vagueness lasted at least until the end of the school year.

I'd have to say that they haven't killed anyone *yet*.

Hey. Just to let you know I read and was impressed by your comments on teawithvoldy's page (about moral relativism in the potterverse), so I've friended you. Hope that's ok!

It's interesting...as I have been rereading OotP I've been making note of how pain in general is presented because it seems at times like "good" characters feel real pain while other characters don't. For instance, we've talked about how pain is less noticed in the WW, but boy, you certainly are made to feel the pain in Harry's hand after his detentions, aren't you? Hermione's even waiting with Murtlap--and later Harry wants to recommend it to Lee. McGonagall being hit with four stunners seems very violent and our pov characters seem frankly horrified by it, but elsewhere people can be hit with many more hexes at once and it's no big deal.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 2 of 4

The Screwtape Twins

Re: Devil's Advocate Time

no subject

no subject

Re: Devil's Advocate Time

Re: Devil's Advocate Time

Re: Devil's Advocate Time

Re: Devil's Advocate Time

no subject

no subject

Re: Devil's Advocate Time

Re: Devil's Advocate Time

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Devil's Advocate Time

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Devil's Advocate Time

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject