Today on Blogcritics
Home » Tolkien in History

Tolkien in History

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Readers, I am so excited about The Lord of The Rings movie coming out!

I was talking to a friend at work, and I mentioned some of the background mythology for this story. He wanted more information about it. Well, I started to write an email, and I couldn’t stop. It’s more of a blog post. Here you are:

Beowulf is one of the oldest books in ancient English (Anglo Saxon) still around. Originally, literacy in the British Isles was concentrated in Latin, since Latin was the language of their ruling elite, the Romans.

Although the Brits had their own language and writing (known as runes), they mostly relayed their cultural stories through word of mouth (oral tradition). Beowulf is only one of these stories, and it is highly treasured because it is one of the very few peeks we have into the culture of the Anglo-Saxons (MY people-transparently white child that I am).

I know of two main reasons why more stories didn’t survive:
one, the advent of Christianity created an unfavorable environment for stories about pagan deities. The British Isles, and especially Ireland, really embraced Christianity when it arrived. Some of the stories were christianized, and deities and legendary heroes got cleaned up into “saints.”

Beowulf has some christianizing in it too.

But the second reason is because of the Norman invasion.In the 11th century, I think, the French came in and enslaved (enserfed?) all the Anglo-Saxons. The Roman empire had long been dead, although Latin was still the Lingua Franca. But Anglo-Saxon writing and speech was what ordinary people used to communicate. When the French took over, they insisted that everyone speak French. Servants only spoke English to each other. And naturally, they had limited time to chew the fat. The complicated grammatical structure of Anglo-Saxon got mushed into a quicker, less nuanced speech. Anglo-Saxon wasn’t really taught; if a person went to be educated, they learned Latin or French. The Anglo-Saxon words that survive in English today are servants words. Swine for a live pig, but the Norman Pork for the meat (the only part that the Lord of the manor would see). Interestingly, all the cuss words survive.

Some of that Norman/Anglo-Saxon antagonism is played on in Monty Python’s Holy Grail. You’ve seen it, I imagine.

But English was saved, as a language, when Chaucer decided to write his “Canterbury Tales” in English. His patrons were Norman nobility, and there was a current of thought at the time which said that nothing poetic could come from this servant language. But the Canterbury Tales were written entirely in English, and this bold statement on the part of Chaucer encouraged many others to attempt the same. Shakespeare would never have written the way he did if not for Chaucer.

Of course, after Shakespeare all kinds of things happened. He was part of the renaissance, then the Age of Reason (aka the age of revolutions: American, French) happened. Then the Romantic period followed that, reacting to the cold idealization of reason. The Romantic period focused on the beauty of nature, and the transformative power of love and higher emotions. Nature elicited those emotions, so nature (with or without the concept of the Christian God, which had suffered some blows during that “reason” period), nature was raised as a saving mercy. The beauty of nature was a place of refuge and a reminder of the beauty of life, a sort of reassurance that good things endure. Thoreau, who wrote Walden, was on the tail end of the American Romantic period.

But then the INDUSTRIAL AGE began. English and American capitalists started raping and pillaging NATURE for fun and profit. Actually, all kinds of capitalists were doing it, not just the English-speaking ones.

Also, around this time, Darwin and other naturalists starting coming up with plausible theories that did away with the need for a benevolent deity. “Survival of the Fittest” was a philosophy that knocked the stuffing out of the idea of nature as a beautiful restorative refuge. Nature wanted to kill you, so that it could eat you. And if you couldn’t thrive, it was probably just as well that you died. One less weak genetic contributor.

How horrifying! You can imagine the slow, sick realization of all these things. The Victorian English ended up focusing primarily on appearances. Keeping a stiff upper lip, doing your duty for your country, and not upsetting society. America also had strong middle-class bourgeois tendencies. Certainly, we were happy to keep any new immigrant class “in their proper place”, often using the new Darwinistic philosophies to justify the mistreatment of other nationalities and the prejudicial racist treatment of African-Americans. “Nature” had made things hard, and the dominant culture took their dominant status as their natural (god-given?) right.

It was the “enlightened” and “modern” way of thinking. Do your duty, do the right thing for no other reason that that it was right. Until World War one happened. Then the “right thing” led to all kinds of wrong things. Thousands and thousands of good people, young upstanding soldiers died fighting for the meaningless cause of a few miles, a few feet of dirt.

The soldiers got really close to nature then. Sitting for months in their foxholes, seeing nothing but dirt, mud, excrement and the bodies of their mates decomposing nearby.

When it was all over, not much had changed but their attitudes. The “modern” way of thinking now meant utter disillusionment. It is no accident that the era was called “The Depression.” God was irrelevant, nature meaningless, and hope was scarce.

It was during this period of time that J.R.R. Tolkien conceived the story of Middle Earth.
You thought I was never gonna take it back around, didn’t you?

Now, most of what _I_ know about concerns the cultures that speak English–America and England. To have the full picture, I will eventually have to learn more about Germany. Because the Germans were REALLY the ones who pursued heroic legends and folks tales. They started it much sooner than the English did. Remember the Brother’s Grimm fairy tales? Now that people have started to study fairy tales more extensively, we have found that they are STUNNINGLY similar across cultures. I think I read that almost every culture has a Cinderella story, which is my personal favorite.

But the German stories were very close to English stories. We actually are a Germanic people, sharing a culture with the folks over there in what’s now called Germany. Wagner also took a well-known Norse legend and made it into his Ring Cycle.

Did I say “ring”? Why, yes I did! It’s the same ring from essentially the same story that Tolkien was ripping off of.

But let me focus on Tolkien again. He was a Medieval scholar at Oxford, and he was probably one of the weirdest guys there. He hung out with C.S. Lewis, of Narnia fame, while he was there. I”ve been to the pub in Oxford where they all hung out. They would have a pint and read their writing to each other. Tolkien was obsessed with the Medieval legends; he has also published a version of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, translated for the Middle English. He knew all the stories live he was living in them.

I think he tried to live in them. I have read that he wrote the Lord of The Rings series in a made-up langauge (elfin, maybe?) and then TRANSLATED it into modern English.

COOkOO!

But it is my opinion that he was trying to escape into another world. This one wasn’t offering much, and he wanted to retreat into a place where heroism and courage and honor still counted.

You notice, I”m sure, that one of the characteristics of a “fantasy novel” is that it takes place before any industrialism. About the most technological they get is a windmill.

And Tolkien was the one in the English language that created the foundation of a complicated fantasy world.His universe is extremely fleshed out. He is as obsessed as you want to be. And many of his fans today are quite obsessed.

But see, he wrote these books in a particular place in time.They were moderately popular in his time, because people felt an affinity for the world that he had created. The novels are complicated. They begin in the middle, the way life does. The characters do something that will have an effect beyond the scope of the novel. They have done something lasting and meaningful. Their heroism is not wasted or twisted into evil ends, as was the heroism of the WWI soldiers.

Basically, Tolkien was calling on the power of myth, the myths that had evolved and been honed through generations of wise and intuitive storytellers. He knew the myths of his culture forward and back; and he dramatized them anew for modern sensibilities.

Society was sick and needed to hear a story. The story they needed was essentially the one we needed all along. Moses, Homer, and wise clan leaders told the stories. Tolkien put it in the language modern readers could understand, with the structure we were used to now. We didn’t use poetic chants…We use dialogue and description.

We don’t use campfires so much. We use ink and paper.

As I said, the Lord of the Ring was moderately popular when Tolkien first published it. But it wasn’t until the hippies rediscovered it that it went platinum, so to speak.

The hippies were sick of the old ways, and they BELIEVED in a new order. Frodo’s heroism was possible for them, they knew it! Hope was everywhere, and so were the Hobbit books.

This is also when the fantasy book market opened up.

NOW, with all that intro
(I am nothing if not thorough)
I would like to propose some of the original myth stories to be read by a fan of fantasy.

TRY
Beowulf
Sigurd the Dragon Slayer
Tales of King Arthur
All fairy tales
the Grimm fairy tales
fairy tales of any culture, particularly of the culture you are from
(if you are an American mutt like me, go for ALL the cultures that are in your mix)
The Iliad & The Odyssey
Gilgamesh
the Aenid (although, that’s an artificial myth, just like Tolkien’s)
Greek Drama (yeah, like Oedipus Rex)

All these are a little difficult to engage, because they are not told in the way we are used to. We are accustomed to being entertained in certain set ways, for plots to move in certain patterns. These stories pre-date those templates.

But they are worth the trouble of reading. You will find that they stay on your mind in ways you didn’t expect. And they don’t go away. The images stay, working as metaphors that give you handles on life’s confusing moments.

That’s what they are supposed to do.

And for learning more about myths, as a topic, I cannot more highly recommend Joseph Campbell.

Powered by

About Murphy

  • http://www.funmurphys.com/blog/ Kevin Murphy

    A few corrections.

    Not that it matters much these days, but the Normans were not ethnically French (Frankish) – they were Vikings who forcibly settled what came to be called Normandy – just as Vikings settled the north of England in what was called the Danelaw. They rapidly adopted French culture including the language. England and France fought a lot of wars because the Normans were vassals of the French king but (after William) kings of England in their own. The Normans would go on to rule southern Italy and Sicily for a time, and ran some of the Crusader states. They got around.

    At the time of Beowulf, the Brits (or Britons) were the Celts living on the island of Great Britain. The English didn’t exist yet, but their forebearers the Anglo-Saxons (the Angles, the Saxons, the Jutes, and the Frisians) were living on the European continent.

    JRR Tolkein was a devout Catholic who had an important role in converting CS Lewis. (They were both officers during the battle of the Somme. They didn’t sit in foxholes; they fought from trenches and dugouts. The Germans much preferred to be stationed opposite the French because the French were content to sit in their trenches unless there were an offensive on; the English constantly fought small scale actions such as night time trench raids.) His works are infused with a Christian spirit and he considered them a great Catholic work. I don’t think its a coincidence that the final book is called “Return of the King” nor that the King has miraculous healing powers.

    JRR Tolkein was not cuckoo. He had a vivid imagination and a love of languages. He invented a few of them himself, and then using germanic and celtic myths invented a backstory to them. He considered folk myths to be repositories of ancient truths in somewhat garbled form. The Hobbit started as bed time stories for his children based on the backstories to his invented languages. He began to write them down and it came to the attention of book editor who persuaded him to write a novel, which he did. After the Hobbit’s success, he went on to write The Lord of the Rings, which was also successful in England.

    The myths he started with were Germannic – but he clearly went far beyond them. He was also deliberately archaic in much of his vocabulary. You left out the Eddas on your list of original material.

    Certainly, the experience of his childhood when the bucolic English countryside became industrialized figures promentantly in LOTR and this theme appealed to hippies. But the idea of a golden age lost is certainly common in many cultures.

    The Aenid isn’t a synthetic myth. All myths are built up over time and Virgil was creating his own using new material interwoven with pre-existing myth. It’s just in this case, we come face to face with an author (like Homer, or Mallory), unlike many myths where we only find a collector, like Bulfinch.

  • http://www.xanga.com/mfinley Mike Finley

    So is it Tolkien or Tolkein? Lots of interesting information here – thanks!

  • Paul

    A few more corrections:

    “But the second reason is because of the Norman invasion.In the 11th century, I think, the French came in and enslaved (enserfed?) all the Anglo-Saxons.”

    First off, it was the Normans. Second, the Normans didn’t enslave anyone. They merely replaced the Anglo-Saxon nobility.

    “The Roman empire had long been dead, although Latin was still the Lingua Franca.”

    Lingua Franca doesn’t mean what you think it means. Latin had been dead for centuries, and was used mainly in Church. It was not a common spoken language, understood by everyone.

    “When the French took over, they insisted that everyone speak French.”

    No they didn’t. The nobility were Normans, and since the Normans spoke French, voila! The Normans didn’t care what language the peasants spoke so long as they paid their taxes and worked their lord’s land and did other peasant-y things.

    “Servants only spoke English to each other. And naturally, they had limited time to chew the fat.”

    All things being equal, it seems more likely that court servants spoke both French and Olde English or a mixture of the two. I opt for the latter as our modern language reflects that view.

    “But English was saved, as a language, when Chaucer decided to write his “Canterbury Tales” in English. His patrons were Norman nobility, and there was a current of thought at the time which said that nothing poetic could come from this servant language. But the Canterbury Tales were written entirely in English, and this bold statement on the part of Chaucer encouraged many others to attempt the same.”

    The Canterbury Tales were written circa 1387, over 300 years after the Norman Conquest. They were not his first work, as he wrote several poems in English, including many translations from French and Italian stories. By 1387, English was widely spoken by both peasant and nobility, with French being more of a courtly or “high” language. Your assertation that Chaucer “saved” the English language all by his lonesome through the publication of one work is humorous.

    “Then the Romantic period followed that, reacting to the cold idealization of reason. The Romantic period focused on the beauty of nature, and the transformative power of love and higher emotions.”

    Look at the root word in “Romantic”. That tells you what influenced the movement you’re not talking about. What you’re talking about is the “Transcendentalist” movement.

    “How horrifying! You can imagine the slow, sick realization of all these things. The Victorian English ended up focusing primarily on appearances. Keeping a stiff upper lip, doing your duty for your country, and not upsetting society. America also had strong middle-class bourgeois tendencies. Certainly, we were happy to keep any new immigrant class “in their proper place”, often using the new Darwinistic philosophies to justify the mistreatment of other nationalities and the prejudicial racist treatment of African-Americans. “Nature” had made things hard, and the dominant culture took their dominant status as their natural (god-given?) right.”

    Socialist much? Well, at least you got the buzzwords in. That’s got to count for something.

    The period immediately following the Great War was referred to as the “Roaring 20’s” or the “Prohibition Era” in the U.S. The Depression referred to the worldwide collapse of the industrialized world’s economies in the 1930’s, which in combination with the Treaty of Versailles, led to the rise of Hitler’s National Socialism in Germany. Darwin’s theories did not express themselves strongly in culture or politics until the 1930’s, approx. 50 years after the period of history you refer to (the 1860’s-1910’s).

    But to throw you a bone, I would concede that the first manipulation of Darwin’s theories towards vile ends was done by Marx, whose theory of class warfare and the assumption of power by the workers as the natural end of history was heavily influenced by Darwin. Of course, a belief in eugenics and of a master race, espoused by the Nazi’s, was the clearest expression of social Darwinism.

    “He was a Medieval scholar at Oxford, and he was probably one of the weirdest guys there.”

    He was a professor of English Language at Leeds and of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford. In other words, he was a linguist.

    “I think he tried to live in them. I have read that he wrote the Lord of The Rings series in a made-up langauge (elfin, maybe?) and then TRANSLATED it into modern English.”

    No, that was a literary conceit. He was presenting his fiction as if it were a translated history, like the aforementioned Gawain and the Green Knight. Being a linguist, he had an interest in old languages and was quite adept at creating new ones, like Elfish. He created languages out of intellectual curiosity, and went one step further by actually charting the history of his fictional languages and the natural word mutations and degradations that happen to any real language over time. Out of this research came his stories- his own Beowulf’s.

    “Wagner also took a well-known Norse legend and made it into his Ring Cycle.

    Did I say “ring”? Why, yes I did! It’s the same ring from essentially the same story that Tolkien was ripping off of.”

    I’m sure people don’t want to read all about Wagner’s influences and of your painting Germanic culture with broad Teutonic brush, so I’ll just skip all that and say you’re exagerrating to the point of riduculousness.

    I’ve no doubt Tolkien may’ve been influenced in part by Wagner, but anyone who has delved into Tolkien’s earlier works and studied their transformtion into the stories we know today would know that any similarity between Wagner and Tolkien is shallow at best. One of Tolkien’s goals was to create a uniquely English creation and hero myth. King Arthur was more of a Norman story and Beowulf is a strange confluence of Germanic and Viking storytelling. Since he was going for something new and English, it would seem odd for him to “rip-off” an extant Germanic opera, yet he wanted something that was accessable and familiar, which would account for the similarities of his work and standard European hero sagas.

    While I have a great affection for Campbell, the two works you cited are perhaps his weakest, as they are too reliant on Freudian thought, which is showing its age. While I agree with many of his observations on the hero myth, his methodology is flawed, as it’s based on a flawed behavioral philosophy

    I would recommend his “Masks of God” books. His observations are more fascinating and hold up better than his Freudian-based works, since they are derived more from Jung and his archetypes than Freud and his “The Mind is a Steam Engine!” philosophy.

  • Eric Olsen

    Damn Paul, there is some serious erudition going on here. Would you say yours and Kevin’s corrections change the nature of what Murphy has to say??

  • Eric Olsen

    And I too am much more drawn to Jung than to Freud, who is far too mechanistic – although it is important to have a mechanism for which to carry out the demands of the collective subconscious and the like. Conrad’s “Secret Sharer” is a beautiful and strange evocation of the collective subconscious.

  • http://www.funmurphys.com/blog/ Kevin Murphy

    Eric,

    I think Murphy is right to recommend some fine old literature. Other than that, I have to agree with Paul: I think he’s mostly inaccurate.

    Although, I think Beowulf isn’t so much a confluence of Germanic and Viking storytelling, but comes from a time when germanic culture was more unified (the Vikings, or Nordics, or Scandinavians are germanic just like the Frisians and the Anglo-Saxons).

  • http://www.wonderblogger.blogspot.com Murphy Horner

    Goodness me! Look at all this rebuttal!

    I’m so pleased to get a response that I don’t even mind the insults.

    Oh, btw Kevin, I’m a girl. Not that it’s terribly important.

    Please keep in mind as you read what I’ve written, I truly understand that I’ve painted with a broad broad brush.

    I mean, really. I was attempting to explain 1500 years (APPROXIMATELY) of background to a friend whose understanding of fantasy novels consisted of reading David Eddings and Piers Anthony.

    Cut me some slack!

    I find that displays of erudition are not weldom in every setting–They can be off-putting.

    But let’s see..I should respond to a couple things.

    When I say Latin was the “Lingua Franca,” I mean that Latin was the international language of the pre-Renaissance period. If a person wanted their writing to have an audience wider than a local area, Latin was the language used. The Roman Church had a lot to do with that.
    The current Lingua Franca is English.

    Chaucer’s choice of English for his poetry did affirm the beauty of the English language. I am not unique in this opinion, and I stand by it.

    The “COOkOO”ness of Tolkien is a moot point. I understand their may be divergence of opinion.

    This part is a little confusing here:
    “Look at the root word in “Romantic”. That tells you what influenced the movement you’re not talking about. What you’re talking about is the “Transcendentalist” movement. ”

    The Romantic period in England, which included such authors as Shelley, Keats, Samuel Coleridge and William Blake is the movement I am talking about. The Romantic movement in America included a set of thinkers and philosophers known as the Transcendentalists, such as Emerson, Bronson Alcott, Margaret Fuller and Thoreau.

    The Transcendentalists shared the English Romantic’s elevation of Nature, but had a slightly different twist on it. Additionally, they did not experience the broad sweep of industrialism that the English people did. America remained wilder than did England.

    And it was the effect of the industrial age that changed the literary emphasis in the Victorian period. Not purely the industrial age, there was also a general loss of faith.

    The change in focus away from the grace of nature is easily seen when comparing the Romantic Wordsworth’s “Tintern Abbey” to Dante Rossetti’s “The Woodspurge.” In the first, Nature is such a stabilizing force to Wordsworth. In the second, Rossetti affirms it’s meaninglessness.

    This is what I meant when I said that the age after the Romantic period was a period of slow, sick realization.

    I think that Marx (and socialism) have very little to do with social Darwinism. Books like Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and Hardy’s Tess of the D’urbervilles show more of the contemporary ideas about the “races.”

    The reason I wanted to emphasize it is because of the way the Germans dealt with their own nation. You rightly say that Nazism is the highest example of social darwinism. Do you think that came out of a vaccuum? I have been taking a look at how they came up with all that aryan race theory. It started in the German romantic period. And one of the things they did in that German Romantic period was to embrace their roots.

    GERMAN MYTHOLOGY.

    That was one of the reasons Wagner took the German mythological story of Sigmund (aka Sigurd) and made an opera out of it.

    WHICH BRINGS ME TO ANOTHER POINT. I did not say that Tolkien ripped off Wagner, although it would have been impossible for him to be unaware of the basic storyline of Wagner’s Ring Cycle. I said that they both used some of the same source material.

    My post was describing a broad sweep of culture in the English and Americans thought processes. It was not meant to be a precise relaying of historical fact.

    It is difficult to be exact about the cultural climate of any age.

    What I hope for the readers is to give some new insight to the Tolkien story, placing it in a broader cultural context that just today. If some readers are already aware of that context, congratulations! It takes time to do the reading and thinking to achieve that state.

    If some are not aware, I hope that I have piqued your interest towards further study.

    Because…well…You can’t trust everything you read on the internet. You have to check it.

    EVERYONE knows that.

  • Eric Olsen

    This has been a very informative thread – thanks to you all, and I’m glad to know you are a girl, if only for visualization purposes.

  • Paul

    “I did not say that Tolkien ripped off Wagner”

    “Did I say “ring”? Why, yes I did! It’s the same ring from essentially the same story that Tolkien was ripping off of.”

    I have facts. You just make shit up to make you feel good. Your understanding of history is poor at best.

    “My post was describing a broad sweep of culture in the English and Americans thought processes. It was not meant to be a precise relaying of historical fact.”

    That was painfully obvious as your post was full of historical fiction. Your facts and methods are faulty, which means you’re wrong.

  • http://www.xanga.com/mfinley Mike Finley

    Paul, your first post was so great — informative, and knowledgeable. One wanted to hoist you on their shoulders and say huzzah.

    But your second post was so not great — splenetic and pissy. One wants to back away, and wipe the goo off one’s hands.

    Some sort of Tolkienic evolution there.

  • Matt

    dude, paul, chill.
    its just an internet post. nobody’s questioning your manhood, you’re just kinda wrong, at least in terms of your assertion that the normans didn’t purposefully subvert Anglo-Saxon language and culture. Though you are correct in saying that they did not outlaw the language, to say that they did not care what their servants spoke is every bit as false as it would be to say that they legislated it. you obviously know as little about the linguistic history of english as murphy knows about Henry david Thoreau. I would suggest maybe channeling your pomposity into some sort of book of literary criticism, where it might do some good, because it’s obviously wasted on the simpletons of this post.

    “Your facts and methods are faulty, which means you’re wrong”… ooooohhhh…witty. you must be a wiz at symbolic logic.

    “His methods have become…unsound”

    name the literary work that was the basis for the movie that was a quote from and you get a cookie… paul can’t play, though, because he would obviously know the answer faster than anyone else, and we have to have a fair competition, now don’t we

  • Peter

    Gee – Paul is getting confused. Murphy wrote “Wagner also took a well-known Norse legend and made it into his Ring Cycle. Did I say “ring”? Why, yes I did! It’s the same ring from essentially the same story that Tolkien was ripping off of.”

    In other words he did not say that Tolkien ripped of Wagner, but that both ripped of the same ‘story’ – i.e. the ‘Norse legend’. So Paul’s “I have facts. You just make shit up to make you feel good” is just…made up shit to make himself feel good.

    His notion that Marx’s theory of class struggle was influenced by Darwin is nonsense. Marx had worked out his theory years before Darwin wrote his book. The ‘Communist Manifesto’ was published ten years before ‘The Origin of Species’. Marx then latched on to Darwin to give his ideas scientific credibility.

    Social Darwinism is a phenomenon of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

    Paul writes, “Look at the root word in “Romantic”. That tells you what influenced the movement you’re not talking about. What you’re talking about is the “Transcendentalist” movement.” I’ve no idea what he’s on about here. The word comes from ‘Roman’, extended to ‘Romance’ and on to ‘Romantic’. How does the origin in the word ‘Roman’ help us with the late 18th and early 19th century movement called Romanticism. ‘Transcendentalism’ refers to a German philosophical tradition stemming from Kant, one that influenced some New England writers in the nineteenth century. What Murphy was describing was Romanticism, not Transcendentalism.

  • Kina

    I think Tolkein support Taiwan independence

  • Duane

    Heart of Darkness. Where’s my cookie?

    And, yes, after such a dazzling display of erudition, I don’t see why the discussion has to degenerate into the hurling of insults.

    Thanks, Murphy. Great post. And excellent comments by Kevin and Paul.

    Just one little bone to pick. While it’s easy enough to sympathize with people who romance the past, as though it were similar to Hobbiton, I think it’s hopelessly naive to wish to go back to medieval times. People lived in mud, and died when they hit 30. Go back to 1152, and just try to get a Coke on ice. And forget about vegging out on a rainy Saturday afternoon with snacks and some old movies.

  • Duane

    Oh, nevermind. I just noticed that these comments were made over a year ago. Too late.