CtD, ch27-28
The final countdown (spoilers):
– chapter 27 – As a general rule, I don’t like the ‘he couldn’t help himself’ trope when it comes to sex, but I think Pritkin losing control like that is understandable. I mean how long has it been since he’s fed that much? We’ve seen in some of the Pritkin shorts how the yearning to feed is still tormenting him very frequently, so while it’s freaky, I get why he was overwhelmed for a moment. The important part for me though, is that he did stop, before Cassie even had to tell him – it’s no wonder she trusts him not to hurt her in HtM. I love how this really intense sequence between Cassie and Pritkin is then balanced by the lighter scene where Dee and Cassie talk Pritkin into disguising himself in drag to escape. IMO one of KC’s greatest talents is the way she blends genres – in the space of two chapters we get drama, romance, comedy and action, it just never gets boring. Although how could we possibly get bored when we have Pritkin RUNNING UP FIVE FLIGHTS OF STAIRS WHILE CARRYING CASSIE. Once again, weirdly hot. Does this qualify as fan service?
– chapter 28 – Sal, oh Sal 🙁 I really liked her you know? Not just because she was introduced as something of a bimbo and then turned out to have hidden depths (love seeing that trope subverted) but also because poor Cassie, she doesn’t get that many female friends. I mean, that’s definitely being remedied, with the introduction of her court and Rhea and Tammy being more involved, but in the beginning at any rate, Cassie’s girl time was pretty limited. That’s why for me, Sal’s betrayal and death is a particularly hard blow. At least Cassie still has Françoise, whom I love.
I think it’s appropriate that Apollo’s ultimate end is fairly ignominious. As Cassie says later, they did the metaphysical equivalent of flushing him down a toilet, and they did it pretty quickly. But this is something that happens a lot in the Cassie books – you’ve got a grand standing, melodramatic villain and in the end, they’re beaten in some almost anti-climactic way, by someone who seems way weak than them (see also – Olga killing Dracula). It’s the classic David and Goliath, Frodo and Sauron story. In these books, power is no guarantee of victory.
Last thing: the Mircass conversation right at the end. So, I’ve made it pretty clear that I do not like the way Mircea and Cassie interact in this book, but this scene isn’t too bad. I like seeing Cassie laying down some ground rules, trying to tackle the communication problems at the heart of their relationship. On the other hand, if you read closely, Mircea doesn’t actually agree to anything. He asks Cassie if she wants him to ‘court’ her, but doesn’t say that he will. He asks her if she can get to know him in their current kind of relationship and she says, tellingly, “Not and keep a clear head.” Whether deliberate or not, the constant sexy times between the two of them does seem to be preventing Cassie from getting to know him. But he still doesn’t actually agree?? I mean, I know he’s a vampire and it’s not in his nature to be direct but for crying out loud, would it kill him to say, ‘yes, we’ll slow down, if it makes you more comfortable’? If he really cares for her, why can’t he just give her that, it’s not that big a request. When Cassie does imply that she finds their relationship too sexual for the time being, he deflects, and suggests that Cassie’s insecurities about their relationship are somehow Pritkin’s fault. Uh, wtf? You know what, I take it back. I do have a problem with this scene. Anyway. I love the ending – “You shaved my legs?” Iconic.
Ok, so here we go again. All bad comments are my own. Please know that I am not trying to tear anyone’s opinion apart. I am just trying to keep a dialog going…
AS for Pritkin-here is my take. At the start of the series he is a complete and total jackass. I don’t know whether this is just his mad at the world vibe, or if his death wish hadn’t calmed down. It’s pretty clear to me that he’s had a rough time of it. I think that’s why so many people are so adamant in their love of Pritkin. He’s just so damaged, and sigh worthy. and his relationship with Cassie is something that pushes his boundaries and makes him look at his own growing feelings, but that is another day. This is one of the first times he tries to sacrifice his life in service to Cassie. Sometimes, I think that is Pritkin’s go to response. Feel attracted to Cassie? Find a way to get her to leave him behind. Find yourself taking cold showers after practicing swordwork? Make a trip to Fairie and get nearly gutted…but I digress. Here he tricks her, saying he can heal himself to get her to reswap bodies. And then uses the mistaken belief from the mages to his advantage in the duel with Saunders.
I love the triple D’s. From their first introduction, I adore them. And boy do they come through! And I love the fact that THOSE shoes are fitting, if they have to break her toes!
Sal, oh man. Sal. Just when we think Cassie is finding her feet, the rug is pulled out from under her. Shouldn’t there be a limit to heartbreak? Only so much before the bank is full…
I think that Cassie does excellent with dealing with the men of her life. She may be married to Mircea, but damn it they are going to date! She may need John all the time, because she know very little magic, but damned if shes going to let him control all of her life. She’s got a good head on her shoulders, and despite the fact that they are several hundred years older. Of course, Mircea’s going to have the upper hand in any discussion. Despite that, I think she gives Mircea a challenge. And here is this 20 something ball of fire who treats Mircea as a man when he is so very used to being the authority figure…
That’s it for now…gotta sleep
[Top]Some Thoughts on Cassie
So, I got two of my friends who read the same kind of stuff that I do to start the Karen Chance books. And they, of course love them…But, they are working their way slowly though them. They have almost caught up to the reread. They obviously don’t compulsively read like I do. I swear to g-d text to speech was an evil invention. I used to have to put the book down to do things like brush my teeth, wash my hair, or cook. Now, I have headphones or a stupid bluetooth speaker. Although it does allow my children to get more regular meals that DO NOT revolve around Laurell K Hamilton or Karen Chance’s publishing schedule…
So, I keep getting these hysterical texts as things happen in the Cassie Palmer world. From random questions to OMG. And of late, I’ve been getting a lot of the OMG variety. They have gotten to the geis and the trip to Fairie. And then to the final duel with Dracula. And I found myself laughing last night at the following text:
OMG Bram Stoker was a Human Servant! WTF! Then, awww so the incubus waited all that time for Dracula? How sweet
My response to the last was Have you ever read Dracula? OK, not sure where I was going with all that…Just chalk it up to my random tangent
But back to my original message, or at least thought. Cassie is not a victim. Sometimes, we forget that she ran away at 14 and returned, of her own volition, to make Tony pay. And then lived in a house with Vampires while she worked tirelessly to destroy what Tony loved most: his money. And hid it. And then ran with government protection. She survived the death of her governess. and then ran successfully for three years. I gotta say, she’s got some chops. That’s at the beginning.
She’s got a voice and she learns to use it. Everyone wants control of her, but somehow, she ends up with a family that includes everyone from the crazy incubus Cassanova to Marco to Pritkin to, yes, Mircea! She takes the guards who come to her and makes them HERS. Cassie is never going to be Agnes. Agnes was raised in the system and a part of it. And her life was compartmentalized, even though she fell in love with her body guard, Jonas. and oh what a love that must have been- Ley line racing and trips though time. But when we see Agnes in other times, she’s alone. And a secret pregnancy to boot! Cassie knows how to hide. She knows how to run. She knows how to win.
Yes, she sometimes gets buffeted by the strong winds of the personalities around her. And remember, we are in her head. And sometimes we get her insecurities bleeding through. But no matter what comes, she copes as best she can. And that’s better than 99% of the population! She learns, she quietly assimilates. She fucking conquers! Her life is messy. I can’t see her making her life fit in boxes. I can’t see her without Mircea’s family, which is becoming hers. I have this image in my head of some of the mansions in Vegas. The really awesome ones that have every possible luxury and themed bedrooms. Almost like an MTV tricked out house for Real World. But I can’t see Cassie, Tami and the kids from the schools living quietly in the suburbs with a mixed security force of vamps and mages. I don’t know where I see her, but…
[Top]Author Scott Lynch responds to a critic of the character Zamira Drakasha, a black woman pirate in his fantasy book Red Seas Under Red Skies, the second novel of the Gentleman Bastard series.
The bolded sections represent quotes from the criticism he received. All the z-snaps are in order.
Your characters are unrealistic stereotpyes of political correctness. Is it really necessary for the sake of popular sensibilities to have in a fantasy what we have in the real world? I read fantasy to get away from politically correct cliches.
God, yes! If there’s one thing fantasy is just crawling with these days it’s widowed black middle-aged pirate moms.
Real sea pirates could not be controlled by women, they were vicous rapits and murderers and I am sorry to say it was a man’s world. It is unrealistic wish fulfilment for you and your readers to have so many female pirates, especially if you want to be politically correct about it!
First, I will pretend that your last sentence makes sense because it will save us all time. Second, now you’re pissing me off.
You know what? Yeah, Zamira Drakasha, middle-aged pirate mother of two, is a wish-fulfillment fantasy. I realized this as she was evolving on the page, and you know what? I fucking embrace it.
Why shouldn’t middle-aged mothers get a wish-fulfillment character, you sad little bigot? Everyone else does. H.L. Mencken once wrote that “Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” I can’t think of anyone to whom that applies more than my own mom, and the mothers on my friends list, with the incredible demands on time and spirit they face in their efforts to raise their kids, preserve their families, and save their own identity/sanity into the bargain.
Shit yes, Zamira Drakasha, leaping across the gap between burning ships with twin sabers in hand to kick in some fucking heads and sail off into the sunset with her toddlers in her arms and a hold full of plundered goods, is a wish-fulfillment fantasy from hell. I offer her up on a silver platter with a fucking bow on top; I hope she amuses and delights. In my fictional world, opportunities for butt-kicking do not cease merely because one isn’t a beautiful teenager or a muscle-wrapped font of testosterone. In my fictional universe, the main characters are a fat ugly guy and a skinny forgettable guy, with a supporting cast that includes “SBF, 41, nonsmoker, 2 children, buccaneer of no fixed abode, seeks unescorted merchant for light boarding, heavy plunder.”
You don’t like it? Don’t buy my books. Get your own fictional universe. Your cabbage-water vision of worldbuilding bores me to tears.
As for the “man’s world” thing, religious sentiments and gender prejudices flow differently in this fictional world. Women are regarded as luckier, better sailors than men. It’s regarded as folly for a ship to put to sea without at least one female officer; there are several all-female naval military traditions dating back centuries, and Drakasha comes from one of them. As for claims to “realism,” your complaint is of a kind with those from bigoted hand-wringers who whine that women can’t possibly fly combat aircraft, command naval vessels, serve in infantry actions, work as firefighters, police officers, etc. despite the fact that they do all of those things– and are, for a certainty, doing them all somewhere at this very minute. Tell me that a fit fortyish woman with 25+ years of experience at sea and several decades of live bladefighting practice under her belt isn’t a threat when she runs across the deck toward you, and I’ll tell you something in return– you’re gonna die of stab wounds.
What you’re really complaining about isn’t the fact that my fiction violates some objective “reality,” but rather that it impinges upon your sad, dull little conception of how the world works. I’m not beholden to the confirmation of your prejudices; to be perfectly frank, the prospect of confining the female characters in my story to placid, helpless secondary places in the narrative is so goddamn boring that I would rather not write at all. I’m not writing history, I’m writing speculative fiction. Nobody’s going to force you to buy it. Conversely, you’re cracked if you think you can persuade me not to write about what amuses and excites me in deference to your vision, because your vision fucking sucks.
I do not expect to change your mind but i hope that you will at least consider that I and others will not be buying your work because of these issues. I have been reading science fiction and fantasy for years and i know that I speak for a great many people. I hope you might stop to think about the sales you will lose because you want to bring your political corectness and foul language into fantasy. if we wanted those things we could go to the movies. Think about this!
Thank you for your sentiments. I offer you in exchange this engraved invitation to go piss up a hill, suitable for framing.
Here follows is a non-comprehensive list of historical female pirates and sailors, women of color first:
- Ching Shih (1775-1844): controlled south China seas, had 80,000-man fleet at her disposal, outlawed rape, extorted retirement package from the Chinese government.
- Sayyida al-Hurra (1482-1562): Pirate queen of Morocco who bedeviled Portuguese and Spanish fleets after being kicked out of Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella in her youth.
- William Brown (1800s, birth name unknown): married Grenadan woman who disguised self as man after fight with her husband and became a sailor.
- Jacquotte Delahaye (1600s): half-Haitian woman who, according to some sources, took over an island and led a force of hundreds of pirates.
- Hingyuon (1800s): Filipina warrior/probable pirate who led armies in Cebu; relative of Humabon, “first truly wealthy person in Cebu”
- Lai Choi San (1900s): Chinese pirate who commanded 12 ships and was a model for the Dragon Lady archetype; thinly-sourced
- Mary Lacy (1740-1801): willful bisexual runaway who became first female shipwright; disguised self as man but claimed pension under own name
- Alfhild (400s): Viking princess who decided to become a pirate instead of getting married.
- Anne Dieu-le-Veut (1661-1710): French pirate who fought along Laurens de Graaf for many years.
- Anne Bonny and Mary Read (1700-1782, c.1690-1721): probably the two most famous female pirates of all time
- Granuaile aka Grace O’Malley (1530-1603): Irish pirate queen who led rebellions against England, personally negotiated with Elizabeth I, gave birth on a ship.
- Cecilia Vasa (1540-1627): Swedish princess who got into endless scandals, became a pirate briefly, was utter black sheep, hated the English.
- Mary Patten (1800s): Took control of ship when her husband suffered mutiny, learned medicine, navigated to port, all while pregnant
- Christina Anna Skytte (1643-1677): Swedish baroness and pirate, very ruthless
- Jeanne de Clisson (c.1300-1359): burnt down much of the Normandy coast and sank a ton of ships after her husband was killed.
- Charlotte Badger (1778-?): Australian convict/single mom who took over ship, sailed to New Zealand, settled with Maori tribe.
In conclusion: read a goddamn book, critic person.
You know, the trolls on the internet are not good people. Nor are they sane!
[Top]I’m always looking for new friends too :) So if you want one, here I am!
Awesome! SO what kind of books do you like? And how do you want to communicate?
[Top][Top]Woodhouse And Raven, Best Friends For Life
Raven was in no hurry to pick out a new best friend at the shelter. After all, this was a lifetime commitment. Raven was still a puppy. And last August, she was choosing a kitten at the animal shelter in Lubbock, Texas — a kitten she could grow old with. So one by one, four kittens were brought before Raven. Some didn’t show much interest. Others just weren’t into Raven’s gentle nuzzling. Except that one kitten. A formidable feline named Woodhouse. Woodhouse would be The One.
Photos by Raven and Woodhouse
Read their beautiful story on Love Meow
[Top]Sometimes people like to write things about florist’s shops. Here are two things you need to know, the most egregiously wrong things.
1. It makes no fucking sense to sketch out a bouquet before you make it. Every individual flower is different in a way that cannot really be adjusted the way other building materials can be adjusted, and each individual bouquet is unique. Just put the fucking flowers together.
2. No one — in months and months of working at the flower shop — has ever cared what the flower/color of the flower means. No one’s ever asked. It’s just not something people tend to care about outside of fiction and it’s certainly not something most florists know. You know what florists know? What looks good and is thematically appropriate.
Here’s an actual list of the symbology of flowers, as professionals use it:
Yellow – for friends, hospitals
Pink – girls, girlfriends, babies, bridesmaids
Red – love
Purple – queens
White – marriage and death (DO NOT SEND TO HOSPITALS)
Pink and purple – ur mum
Red, orange, and yellow – ur mum if she’s stylish
Red, yellow, blue – dudes and small children
Blue and white – rare, probably a wedding
Red and white – love for fancy bitchesHere are what the flowers actually mean to a florist:
The Fill It Out flowers:
Carnations – fuck u these are meaningless filler-flowers, not even your administrative assistant likes them, show some creativity
Alstroemeria – by and large very similar to carnations but I like them better
Tea roses – cute and lil and come several to a stalk, a classy filler flower
Moluccella laevis – filler flower but CHOICE
Delphinium – not as interesting as moluccella but purple so okay I guess
Blue thistle – FUCK YEAH, some fucking textural variety at last! you’re getting this for a dude, aren’t you?
Chrysanthemums – barely better than carnations but better is still better
Gladiolus – ooh, risky business, someone understands the use of the Y-axis, very goodFocal points:
Long-stem roses – yeah whatever
Lilies – LBD, looks good with everything, get used as often as possible
Hydrangeas – thirsty fuckers, divas of the flower world and rightly so, treat them right and they make you look good
Gerbera daisies – the rose’s hippie cousin, hotter but no one admits it
Peonies – CHA-CHING, everybody’s absolute favorite but you need guap
Orchids – if this isn’t for a wedding you’re probably trying too hard but they’re expensive so keep ordering themYou know what matters? THE CUSTOMER’S BUDGET. THAT’S TELLING.
-$20 – if you’re not under 12, fuck off, get your sugar something else
$30 – good for bouquets but an arrangement will be lame
$40 – getting there, there’s something that can be done with that. you can get some gerbs or roses with that and not have them look stupidly solo.
$50 to $70 – tolerable
$80 – FINALLY. It sounds elitist but this really is the basic amount of money you should expect to spend on an arrangement that matters. That’s your Mother’s Day arrangement. You’re probably not going to spend $80 on a bouquet.
$90 to $130 – THE GOOD SHIT, you’re likely to get some orchids
$130+ – Weddings and death. This amount of money gets you a memorial arrangement or a handmade bridal bouquet. Don’t spend this on a Mother’s Day or a Babe I Love You arrangement, buy whosits a massage or something.Miscellaneous:
- Everything needs greening and if you don’t think that you’re an idiot.
- As a new employee, when you start making arrangements, you can’t see the mistakes you’re making because you’re brand new and you’re learning an art form from the ground up.
- With a few exceptions customers don’t have a clear plan in mind. They want you to develop the bouquet for them. They want something that will delight their little sweetbread but you’re lucky if they know that person’s favorite color, let alone flower.
- Flower shops don’t typically have every kind of flower in every kind of color. Customers generally aren’t assed about that. Most people don’t care about the precise shade of the rose or having daffodils in July, because they’re not boning up on flower language before they buy. That would imply that they’ve got a clear bouquet in mind and, again, they don’t.
- Being a florist is essentially a lot like what I imagine being a mortician is about. You’re basically keeping dead things looking good for as long as possible. You keep the product in the fridge so it doesn’t rot and look horrible by the time the family gets a whack at it, and in the meanwhile you put it in a nice container.
Anyway that’s flowers.
this is magnificent and I love hearing about ppl job feilds
When I first encountered the literary classic Lolita, I was the same age as the infamous female character. I was 15 and had heard about a book in which a grown man carries on a sexual relationship with a much younger girl. Naturally, I quickly sought out the book and devoured the entire contents on my bedroom floor, parsing through Humbert Humbert‘s French and his erotic fascination for his stepdaughter, the light of his life, the fire of his loins — Dolores Haze. I remember being in the ninth grade and turning over the cover that presented a coy pair of saddle shoes as I hurried through the final pages in homeroom.
Although I remember admiring the book for all its literary prowess, what I don’t recall is how much of the truth of that story resonated with me given that I was a kid myself. Because it wasn’t until I reread the book as an adult that I realized Lolita had been raped. She had been raped repeatedly, from the time she was 12 to when she was 15 years old.
As a young woman now, it’s startling to see how that fundamental crux of the novel has been obscured in contemporary culture with even the suggestion of what it means to be “a Lolita” these days. Tossed about now, a “Lolita” archetype has come to suggest a sexually precocious, flirtatious underage girl who invites the attention of older men despite her young age. A Lolita now implies a young girl who is sexy, despite her pigtails and lollipops, and who teases men even though she is supposed to be off-limits.
In describing his now banned perfume ad, Marc Jacobs was very frank about the intentions of his sexy child ad and why he chose young Dakota Fanning to be featured in it. The designer described the actress as a “contemporary Lolita,” adding that she was “seductive, yet sweet.” Propping her up in a child’s dress that was spread about her thighs, and with a flower bottle placed right between her legs, the styling was sufficient to make the 17-year-old look even younger. The text below read “Oh Lola!,” cementing the Lolita reference completely. The teenager looks about 12 years old in the sexualizing advertisement, which is the same age Lolita is when the book begins.
And yet Marc Jacobs’ interpretation of Lolita as “seductive” is completely false, as are all other usages of Lolita to imply a “seductive, yet sweet” little girl who desires sex with older men.
Lolita is narrated by a self-admitted pedophile whose penchant for extremely young girls dates all the way back to his youth. Twelve-year-old Dolores Haze was not the first of Humbert Humbert’s victims; she was just the last. His recounting of events is unreliable given that he is serially attracted to girl children or “nymphets” as he affectionately calls them. And his endless rationalizing of his”love” for Lolita, their “affair,” their “romance” glosses over his consistent sexual attacks on her beginning in the notorious hotel room shortly after her mother dies.
This man who marries Lolita’s mother, in a sole effort to get access to the child, fantasizes about drugging her in the hopes of raping her — a hypothetical scenario which eventually does come to fruition. Later on as he realizes that Lolita is aging out of his preferred age bracket, he entertains the thought of impregnating her with a daughter so that he can in turn rape that child when Lolita gets too old
Lolita does make repeated attempts to get away from her rapist and stepfather by trying to alert others as to how she is being abused. According to Humbert, she invites the company of anyone which annoys him given that the pervert doesn’t want to be discovered. And yet, he manipulates her from truly notifying the authorities by telling her that without him — her only living relative — she’ll become a ward of the state. By spoiling her with dresses and comic books and soda pop, he reminds her that going into the system will deny her such luxuries and so she is better off being raped by him whenever he pleases than living without new presents.
Given that Humbert is a pedophile, his first-person account is far from trustworthy when deciphering what actually happened to Lolita. But, Vladimir Nabokov does give us some clues despite our unreliable narrator. For their entire first year together on the road as they wade from town to town, Humbert recalls her bouts of crying and “moodiness” — perfectly understandable emotions considering that she is being raped day and night. A woman in town even inquires to Humbert what cat has been scratching him given the the marks on his arms — vigilant attempts by Lolita to get away from her attacker and guardian. He controls every aspect of her young life, consumed with the thought that she will leave him with the aid of too much allowance money or perhaps a boyfriend. He interrogates her constantly about her friends and eventually ransacks her bedroom revoking all her money. Lolita is often taunted with things she desires in exchange for sexual favors as Nabokov writes in one scene:
“How sweet it was to bring that coffee to her, and then deny it until she had done her morning duty.”
Lolita eventually does get away from her abusive stepfather by age 15, but the fact that she has been immortalized as this illicit literary vixen is not only deeply troublesome, it’s also a completely inaccurate reading of the book. And Marc Jacobs is not alone in his highly problematic misinterpretation of child rape and abuse as “sexy.” Some publications and publishing houses actually recognize the years of abuse as love.
On the 50th anniversary edition of Lolita, which I purchased for the sake of writing this piece, there sits on the back cover a quote from Vanity Fair which reads:
“The only convincing love story of our century.”
The edition, which was published by Vintage International, recounts the story as “Vladimir Nabokov’s most famous and controversial novel” but also as having something to say about love. The back cover concludes in its summary:
“Most of all, it is a meditation on love — love as outrage and hallucinations, madness and transformation.”
“Love” holds no space in this novel, which details the repeated sexual violation of a child. Although Humbert desperately tries to convince the reader that he is in love with his stepdaughter, the scratches on his arms imply something else entirely. Because the lecherous Humbert has couched his pedophilia in romantic language, the young girl he repeatedly violated seems to have passed through into pop culture as a tween temptress rather than a rape victim.
Conflating love or sexiness with the rape of literature’s most misunderstood child is dangerous in that it perpetuates the mythology that young girls are some how participating in their own violation. That they are instigating these attacks by encouraging and inciting the lust of men with their flirty demeanor and child-like innocence.
Let it be known that even Lolita, pop culture’s first “sexy little girl” was not looking to seduce her stepfather. Lolita, like a lot of young girls, was raped.
Source: http://www.mommyish.com/2011/11/16/lolita-novel-sex-rape-pedophilia-541/2/#ixzz3N4PFEyex
I was going through this at age 11 when i got my hands on the book, and i never read it as sexual. I cried and related to her on such a deep level. Anyone who thinks lolita is a love story is gross.
Too real. Lolita means so much to me, because I was raped by an older adult man when I was 15 and years later when I came forward about it people said it was my fault because I flirted with him. A friend of his even teased me with the comment “weren’t you his little Lolita?” Lolita. Is Not. A love story. The continuous sexual abuse of a teenage girl is not love.
What chaps my ass is that NABOKOV didn’t see it as a love story. He found Humbert repugnant and went out of his way to make him so.
He hated that people saw it as romantic when he’d meant to write a fucking horror novel.
I hate when people call themselves Lolita or that fucking Lana del Rey song.This book is about a little girl being raped constantly and they make it seem like a seduction or tease.Please people read this article or read what the book really is this story makes my gut churn.I was being molested as a kid and had mental games played on me.Please Please Please to save another persons life stop romanticizing this story let people know this isn’t no old century love this is rape
Rape is never ok. Nor is a relationship between an adult and a child. I read a lot but it is imperative that this be a truth of our age. Too many people refuse to stand up to protect that truth. Many of my favorite heroines were abused as children.
[Top]