"Against Walter Dean Myers" & the "insipidness" of YA

maybegenius · Jan 7, 2012

So, Walter Dean Myers (author of MONSTER, HOOPS, and many other books about urban teen life) was recently named National Ambassador for Young People's Literature, right? Well, his appointment inspired this article in which a former high school teacher and literature lover speaks against his placement and implies that YA is not and can not be the equivalent of "literature that should elevate."

Alexander Nazaryan said:
But [Myers'] mission is bound to fail, I am afraid. I thought it then, as I watched boys wrestle between desks over who would read “Bad Boy” or “Hoops” next. I think it now, with Myers having ascended to the heights of the YA world. Because while his own story is inspiring, his books are insipid.

I think that because I am an unashamed, unapologetic believer that the purpose of literature is to elevate. Not to entertain, to problematize or to instruct, but to take what Hamlet called our “unweeded garden” and revel in its thorns. Not to make the world pretty, but to make it true, and by making it true, make it beautiful. All real art is high art.

Myers’ books on the other hand, are painfully mundane, with simple moral lessons built into predictable situations: the projects, prison, redemption.

Basically, the guy is saying that kids reading YA is essentially a pointless exercise that will get them nowhere and teach them nothing of value, and that they should be reading "the classics" in order to gain true value from literature. This is, of course, flawed thinking for numerous reasons, but that wasn't even what caught my eye in this article.

What caught my eye were some of the comments.

Rigsy said:
I think the phrase, "the purpose of literature is to elevate. Not to entertain, to problematize or to instruct," will be a point of contention. The reason is that the terms are broad, and you left them undefined.

...

My point is that [had you better defined your points,] you'd have covered your ass for the inevitable reaction from the consistently childish YA industry. And if they couldn't pick on that, they might have to present their own ideas for literature, for whatever goals might be considered worthwhile (or those that may be considered unworthy). It would certainly elevate the conversation.

But I get the impression from YA professionals (mostly the writers I've met, and they have been legion), that they don't like to think harder thoughts. Often, they popped over to the YA side because the community has that air of do-as-you-please carelessness. The critics mostly assess work based on whether or not they liked the protagonist. And anyone trying to grapple with the tough questions is pretentious. I get the impression that many of them haven't quite dealt with their own high school experiences, or wish to revisit them now that they're sufficiently strong enough to handle it. Much of Twitter, the blogs, etc, seems to be a population of grown-ups acting like their characters...and let's face it, kids don't like homework.

Alexander Nazaryan said:
The following comment was related to me (author of the above original post) by Catherine McCredie, a senior editor of young adult fiction at Penguin Group Australia. Her response, in full:

This is (to my ears) a fresh and welcome attack on contemporary young adult literature. Those of us who produce YA literature are used to hearing that too much of it is too dark, but we don’t usually hear it’s too insipid. And I agree that most of it probably is, just as most contemporary adult novels probably are – especially compared with the ancient classics.

As someone whose job it is, in part, to look out for new talent, I search for that manuscript that has ‘the life force’ amid the reams of competent but uninspired writing that we receive, and have rarely seen it. So much of it, like so many people you encounter, is just mimicry.

...

This portion is taken out of context, so you should definitely go read the entire comment at the bottom of the comment thread, but the point made here is the one that caught my eye.

These comments naturally made me do the squinty side-eye, but I don't know that I think they're entirely unfounded. This is how people outside the YA community view it. They look at (some of) us and how we act and respond to criticism of our work or genre, and they see a tightly-knit group of grown-up children who like to stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la" after they pat each other on the back.

This is something I think about a lot a lot a lot. I write genre fiction. I am under no illusions that I'm writing the next great work of literary nirvana or anything. Even so, I do want my work to be literary. I want it to be elevated. This is exactly why I buck so hard every time someone (usually not a writing/publishing professional) tells me they think my writing is too "high" for teenagers. No, it isn't. I wrote it that way on purpose. Because I think teenagers deserve and can handle elevated language and themes. So there.

I want to be told if my work is not as good as it could be. I want it to be better. I want to eventually write something that will shut the mouths of all these people who think literature written for youth is this immature, lesser, invaluable thing.

And because of this, the comments above make me cringe and make me angry, but I don't think they're entirely off the mark. This is why I get so upset when the YA community behaves in the way of the recent (and past) Goodreads and blog war debacles. Because that kind of stuff just proves these people right. Unless we can show them, not just tell them, but SHOW THEM, that we are capable of handling criticism like professionals and adults, then what they're saying holds water. This is why I think it's important for us to learn to think critically of ourselves and our community and not fall into the trap of isolation and surrounding ourselves with yes-men.

At the same time, I think it's dangerous to get into specifics about which books are "quality literature" and which are "insipid." Obviously, that is highly subjective and NO ONE will agree. Nor should they. Not everyone is at the same reading level or has the same reading needs. I admit I tend to fall on the side of intellectualism, but even so, I acknowledge the value and merits of what most people would call "fluff" fiction. Not everyone wants or needs a complex brain workout with their literature. Reading is reading. There should be something out there for everyone.

Okay, now I'm totally rambling and this post is WAY WAY WAY TL;DR and I apologize. But I thought it'd be an interesting discussion topic to bring to the table.

So. Thoughts?

maybegenius · Jan 7, 2012

THAT SHOULD OF COURSE BE WALTER DEAN MYERS AND NOT WALTER DEAD MYERS I AM A NOOB I APOLOGIZE.

JUST KIDDING I FIXED IT.

Missus Akasha · Jan 7, 2012

Let's face it, the YA genre will always be considered the rebel and not everyone will be pleased with the content that is in it. However, who are these people to say that young adult readers won't gain life values from YA fiction? There are hundreds and hundreds of books that are considered classics now when way back when, they were banned from schools and homes while criticized for the material within the pages.

It is important to read classics, but to dismiss YA fiction as a childish genre that doesn't want to dive into the deeper topics of life is rather bold statement.

thothguard51 · Jan 7, 2012

Please show me the section of my writers contract with readers where I have to elevate them. I seem to have missed that clause...

I think it was in the movie Finding Forrester, where Forrester note that writers write well get published and those who can't teach. I wonder what Mr Alexander Nazaryan record is ????

lvae · Jan 7, 2012

maybegenius said:
And because of this, the comments above make me cringe and make me angry, but I don't think they're entirely off the mark. This is why I get so upset when the YA community behaves in the way of the recent (and past) Goodreads and blog war debacles. Because that kind of stuff just proves these people right. Unless we can show them, not just tell them, but SHOW THEM, that we are capable of handling criticism like professionals and adults, then what they're saying holds water. This is why I think it's important for us to learn to think critically of ourselves and our community and not fall into the trap of isolation and surrounding ourselves with yes-men.

Authors behaving badly isn't a phenomenom exclusively demonstrated by YA authors - and it isn't even especially apparent in YA authors either. As aspiring writers, we're just particularly sensitive to any drama that happens to this specific niche of the industry.

But I have noticed the YA lit industry does seem to have much more of a visible online presence than other genres (bar romance). YA publishers also seem to use the Internet to market their books more than most other genres, as opposed to traditional print sources such as magazines. But this again might be just me being more aware of YA marketing strategies, as an aspiring writer.

I need more time with the 'literature that should elevate' statement. My thoughts on this topic are very confused.

thothguard51 · Jan 7, 2012

I really need to learn to google search first...

I little something about the author of the article. Here's the link...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/alexander-nazaryan.html

Emberchyld · Jan 7, 2012

*sigh* And those attacks on YA completely contradict the discussions that I've been seeing lately that laud YA for empowering teen girls... or how "bestselling adult" authors are jumping into the genre (some may say for monetary reasons, some because they feel the need to explore their YA voice.)

I (still) remember being in high school. I take dance classes with high schoolers and skate with middle/high schoolers. And, while I was the geek who loved Austen and Shakepeare and I know that teens like that do exist, what I hear these teens discussing are books that people like those self-professed "literature lovers" consider the equivalent of junk food. But in these books, the girls that I know see themselves fighting against a dystopian society or winning the boy or saving the world. As their lives get more and more difficult, they can escape into these worlds. Those books that they have to read for high school because they're classics? Yeah, not so much. Also, ask a bunch of teens who are fans of the Infernal Devices series how many of them have read "A Tale of Two Cities" as a result... and you'll find that YA novels have more success in getting teens to read a classic than any English teacher just pushing the novel.

Are most of these the next Great American Novel? No. But there's a TON of junk (sometimes, I"m AMAZED at what gets published) in the standard Fiction section as well.

(Sorry for the rant. I'm just... annoyed at these people trying to take away something that I believe gives teens an escape into their own world.)

missesdash · Jan 7, 2012

This is a great discussion. I definitely disagree that literature shouldn't be written to entertain. That's a philosophical debate for another day.

But really, all people know of YA authors is what they see on twitter and blogs. As with any group, the worst behaved are usually the loudest. There are certainly tons of immature and petty writers who write adult lit. And adult lit has just as much trash as YA.

In a way it feels self fulfilling because people read these articles about how YA is crap, and YA is easier to write so they rush forward and think they'll make a quick buck or that they can write YA instead of "real books" since they don't have a wriing background.

As long as it's presented as a place for idiots, idiots will flock to it. The YA community gets a lot more scrutiny than the others because we're so present online and accessible. Our audience expects that because it's how they lead their lives.

It's easy for people to bitch about the behavior of writers now that it's out in the open. But anyone who has worked with artists knows that in general, we're touchy about what we do and can be very poorly behaved when it isn't received well. This isn't new or confined to YA. it goes back further than Van Gogh chopping off his ear and giving it to a prostitute.

We've always been crazy people, but we were crazy alone, in the dark, hunched over type writers or crazy and drunk in a cafe with other crazy artists. So really, yes we should try to do better and encourage maturity. But at the same time we shouldn't necessarily feel that this is a YA thing.

thothguard51 · Jan 7, 2012

Crazy is what one is/does alone.

But crazy in a group of like minded people is a movement...

maybegenius · Jan 7, 2012

Completely agreed that the "authors behaving badly" thing is not exclusive to YA. Unfortunately, I also agree that because we are so active and accessible to the public via the Internet, it opens us up to a lot more scrutiny, especially because of WHAT we write. Because we're writing for and about teenagers, it is very, very easy for people to jump in with the "you're behaving like you're audience because you never grew up you big baby etc etc etc" argument.

It sadly true that the few loudest individuals often influence the perception of the whole. It sucks. I'm not sure what to do about that. Still, I think there's some merit in the idea that we, as a community, are occasionally unwilling to be critical. It's a really convoluted mess. First, we're encouraged not to speak ill of our contemporaries as new or aspiring authors, which is fair to an extent. Next, the YA community as a whole is very supportive of its members, which sometimes bleeds into going too far in defending our friends and colleagues, which in turn makes us look like we can't handle criticism. AND THEN, there are instances where we really CAN'T handle criticism and we start crying foul when someone says our work is too silly or fluffy or ignorant or whatever.

SO MANY ISSUES TO WORRY ABOUT, UGH.

missesdash · Jan 7, 2012

Well I'm pretty new to "the YA community" so I'm still figuring it all out. I rolled my eyes at the recent GoodReads "drama" because it really didn't seem like drama at all. In fact it felt perpetuated by a 14 year old book blogger and a few obsessive tweets.

So that did seem very...immature to me. But since I haven't been around long, I didn't want to assume it was a regular thing. But it is a very "tight knit" group. Often the point where I don't know if I'll ever consider myself part of it. Not in a pretentious "I'm too good" way, but more the behavior you mentioned is borne out of a very intense solidarity and that kind of attitude tends to discourage dissent.

pixydust · Jan 7, 2012

I feel like I've been transported to the 1950s. What is that woman's problem? Next she'll be telling the kids they have to wear uniforms to "elevate" themselves above style fopauxs.

I'm leery when someone comes out and says: "That isn't art!" Like they're god on the issue. And on what basis do they make this statement?

And I agree, sometimes writer's act like children, but not just YA writers. All artists in all forms, have a propensity to act improper at times, be passionate, a little too passionate sometimes. That's been happening since Van Gough cut his ear off. And we're surprised about this, why? LOL...

I think we need to always be reevaluating ourselves, swallowing our pride, and keeping peace where we can. But it would be difficult to stand by and watch a friend, whom I respect, get raked over the coals when I know it's due to petty and "insipid" arguments.

I admire Walter Dean Myers. I've heard him speak a few times and believe his voice is pivotal to the community at large. He's inspiring and hopeful and real. And I was beyond thrilled to hear he was chosen for such an honorable post.

thebloodfiend · Jan 7, 2012

sometimes, i wonder if these people read ya. it's like me making judgement on christian lit or mystery/noir. i don't read it, so how would i know anything about it?

as for the ya community? yeah, i think they're too "rah-rah" sometimes. but it's nice to see people who stick up for each other. i just wish the few ass-hats out there wouldn't ruin it for the rest of us.

but, seriously? why do people always have to have something to pick on? is it like an ego boost for people to shit on ya and claim that it's inferior and without literary merit?

ftr, i write to entertain. while elevation of self might be a side-effect, it isn't really my intention. i write according to my morality and that's about it.

timewaster · Jan 8, 2012

missesdash said:
Well I'm pretty new to "the YA community" so I'm still figuring it all out. I rolled my eyes at the recent GoodReads "drama" because it really didn't seem like drama at all. In fact it felt perpetuated by a 14 year old book blogger and a few obsessive tweets.

So that did seem very...immature to me. But since I haven't been around long, I didn't want to assume it was a regular thing. But it is a very "tight knit" group. Often the point where I don't know if I'll ever consider myself part of it. Not in a pretentious "I'm too good" way, but more the behavior you mentioned is borne out of a very intense solidarity and that kind of attitude tends to discourage dissent.

I missed the Goodreads drama, but i've been writing and publishing kids'/YA novels for twelve years now and I don't think any of the YA writers I know are childish in any way. A number of us blog together at http://awfullybigblogadventure.blogspot.com/ where you can judge for yourself.
We are all in the UK so our experience is perhaps different, but most of the people I know do not write bland or even easy books. There is some wonderful writing for YA, disciplined, tight and honest. There are commercial pressures on all of us to write to be safe, and write what marketing departments think will sell, but there is no dearth of really good, thought provoking material over here. YOu have to make compromises but writers have always written under constraints.

(I also think the notion that literature can't be entertaining is totally bonkers.)

Alessandra Kelley · Jan 8, 2012

Interesting.

I think the science fiction genre got this treatment starting in the
'50s or '60s, when its authors really started trying to explore and treat serious (and yeah, elevating) subjects. I bet there's some of that in YA too, yes?

Science fiction has also been treated to mainstream authors deciding they want to write sf, like Emberchyld noted here. From within the community the results tended to look less than original.

The insular thing, too. As a community of people passionate about something treated indifferently by part, at least, of the literary world, science fiction authors have tended to stick together, support each other, gossip with each other, and not talk much about their internal goofinesses to people outside the field. I think there may have been some unfortunate tendency to close ranks.

Attention paid to your genre, especially when it's condescending, can be grating. But expanding its possibilities is a good thing.

I should point out I'm not a sci fi writer, in fact, not any kind of writer at all. But I grew up among them. These are just my observations, probably not canon.

Lydia Sharp · Jan 8, 2012

2012 is apparently the year of the YA lit apocalypse. Every day it's something new, and somehow worse than what came before it.

It'll pass, I know. But in the meantime... :e2beat:

CACTUSWENDY · Jan 8, 2012

I don't write YA.

I am always leery when the 'box' is the only way/place that a notable work can be done. Thinking outside the 'box' is where you will find the diamonds, the wow factor, even the 'got to have' works.

IMHO I believe there is 'junk' in all areas of the written word. To scoop everything into one nice heap is never a good reason/plan. I am one that still wants to be 'entertained' by any thing I read. It is one of the driving factors of why folks read in the first place. (Makes no difference if it is a classic or otherwise.)

Many times the simplest told story can carry the most right on message. I do agree that teens can/do read higher than they might be given credit for. I don't think there is ever a need to dumb down a story.

Again, this is only my two cents.

timewaster · Jan 8, 2012

CACTUSWENDY said:
I don't write YA.

I am always leery when the 'box' is the only way/place that a notable work can be done. Thinking outside the 'box' is where you will find the diamonds, the wow factor, even the 'got to have' works.

IMHO I believe there is 'junk' in all areas of the written word. To scoop everything into one nice heap is never a good reason/plan. I am one that still wants to be 'entertained' by any thing I read. It is one of the driving factors of why folks read in the first place. (Makes no difference if it is a classic or otherwise.)

Many times the simplest told story can carry the most right on message. I do agree that teens can/do read higher than they might be given credit for. I don't think there is ever a need to dumb down a story.

Again, this is only my two cents.

It does depend on what you mean by 'dumb down'. YA writing tends to be pithier, tighter, with more narrative drive and fewer sub plots than some other kinds of writing, but that doesn't prevent it from dealing with difficult ideas or from having literary merit. It is a different kind of writing from material pitched at the lit novel market, but eschewing some of the characteristics of lit novels isn't necessarily dumbing down.

lilmizflashythang · Jan 8, 2012

I think he means assuming that your audience are idiots, not that the idea should be stupid.

missesdash · Jan 8, 2012

I also think some people assume a book is written in a simple way because it's for teens, but they forget about the inportance of voice in YA, especially in first person. So it may seem dumbed down because it reads, ya know, like real people speak.

That's definitely a stylistic choice and makes it easier for all kinds of readers to relate to your characters/story. People who say "teens are smarter than this" tend to forget about the teenagers who do have a tough time reading but don't want to read middle grade. So we should also consider the writers intended audience.

Toothpaste · Jan 8, 2012

There have been adult authors on Twitter who have behaved badly recently. The interwebs isn't just for YA alone. Nor do I put much stock into the argument that the only purpose of literature is to elevate. Further I am so used to the literary scene dissing every other genre to really take this personally. And of course the whole "if it's written simply it must be simplistic" is a very simplistic and ridiculous argument.

That being said.

I'm going to say something that might be unpopular. But I think a fair bit of the YA fiction out there that is very popular, that gets prime shelving placement etc . . . isn't very good.

Does this make it the majority of YA fiction? Absolutely not. Are there very popular books that are also great quality. Absolutely yes. But while people in this thread have been pointing out how even if the books aren't elevating they at least inspire say girls to be strong etc, I have to really disagree.

I have seen, in the last couple years, and definitely inspired by TWILIGHT's success, a great number of books published by big houses about girls who are supposed to be strong, but aren't really. Who put up with truly jerky guys because actually the guy is supposed to be alpha and in love with her. That the "true passionate love" is an excuse for female characters to put themselves in subservient positions, to not care about anything in their world aside from the boy (and also some big quest thing, but really the important thing is the boy). Pseudo-feminism where "strong" = "having magic powers" but not "being intelligent, independent, a leader, an ability to laugh at oneself, and good at problem solving".

Further, and this is where things get really subjective, I think the writing in some of these books isn't very good. Now, I must be very clear about this, there is writing in just these books that is brilliant, I in no way am associating genre with writing quality. But when this kind of story goes hand in hand with terrible writing AND the book is extremely popular. . . that's clearly something that outsiders are noticing, and painting our entire genre with.

(which, I should add, is extremely unfair. A lot of people think Dan Brown is a terrible writer and his books are awful, but they then don't turn around and say all books for adults are terrible.)

So yes, I'm going to be critical of YA and say that some of it really is terrible. And that the big problem is that this some of it gets A LOT of attention. There are entire YA blogs devoted to just one certain kind of YA book, and the majority are for these kinds of books.

Know how I know this? I just spent 8 hours a day for 8 days working as a temp where I had absolutely nothing to do aside from play on the internet. So I searched "YA blogs" and read. And read. And read. And while there are some incredibly wonderfully critical and astute YA blogs out there that I thoroughly enjoyed, the majority are not. The majority are obsessed with the kinds of books I mention above.

So now of course the conversation turns to reading for entertainment and these are clearly very popular books so even if I don't like them, someone out there does. And isn't it fantastic that people are talking about books at all, and creating blogs and being inspired. And I get it. And I think it's fantastic. I'm not at all denying these books should exist and be popular. I am simply pointing out that when you have a genre seeming represented by these kinds of books, is it any wonder that people think there is nothing of substance to our genre?

Is there any wonder that a friend of mine who is venturing into YA from literary adult fiction will immediately call a writing technique or trope that isn't literary "so YA" and I have to point out to her, "Uh, no, that's just a superhero/action adventure trope, you see it in adult lit all the time"?

I also realise that in my saying what I am about other books, I am opening up to criticism of mine. But I have to admit what I've been seeing. And it isn't great.

And further, the unwillingness of the YA community to be critical of itself outside of the pub (because at the pub then you hear the real sentiments of insiders), makes our community seem childish, and clique-ish, and seeming immature writers where everyone wins a trophy.

shaldna · Jan 8, 2012

Whether the literature is considered to have any actual 'quality' about it, I completely disagree with this bloke and his assertion that literatures only purpose is to elevate. He even states that entertainment alone is not good enough.

What a freakin snob.

He states that he's seen kids fight over who gets to read a book next. That is amazing, and shows that, no matter how good he thinks the book to be, the kids are loving it and desperate to read it. That love of that book will change over time, expanding to encompass other books, other genres.

The pure and simple love of a book, any book at all, will lead to a love of more books.

missesdash · Jan 8, 2012

I also saw in the comments he said something along the lines of: "if it's only about getting them to read, why not let them read cereal boxes?"

The thing is, if I couldn't get a kid to read, I'd be absolutely thrilled if they started reading cereal boxes. I'd buy five boxes of cereal every day if that's what got them reading. It's like he doesn't see the importance of the reading itself, only the content.

maybegenius · Jan 8, 2012

missesdash said:
I also think some people assume a book is written in a simple way because it's for teens, but they forget about the inportance of voice in YA, especially in first person. So it may seem dumbed down because it reads, ya know, like real people speak.

That's definitely a stylistic choice and makes it easier for all kinds of readers to relate to your characters/story. People who say "teens are smarter than this" tend to forget about the teenagers who do have a tough time reading but don't want to read middle grade. So we should also consider the writers intended audience.

I definitely agree here, and like I believe Toothpaste mentioned, a lot of people equate a more simplistic style with "dumbed down" writing, and I don't think that's the case at all. Simple and straightforward does not mean stupid. A book's theme does not have to be wrapped in layers and layers of language and metaphor and difficult ideas in order to hold water.

I think a lot of people forget, too, that children and teenagers are still PRETTY DARN NEW to reading and literature. They haven't been to college and done a ton of serious literary analysis. The classics are new and fresh to them, and so is contemporary literature. This is the foundation of their reading life and the beginning of what is hopefully a lifelong love of literature. They're just starting to figure out what they like. When we start taking books they're enjoying away and going, "No no no, that's trash, read THIS instead!", we're undermining that process. Sure, give them the "good" book too. But don't take other books away to do it.

missesdash said:
I also saw in the comments he said something along the lines of: "if it's only about getting them to read, why not let them read cereal boxes?"

The thing is, if I couldn't get a kid to read, I'd be absolutely thrilled if they started reading cereal boxes. I'd buy five boxes of cereal every day if that's what got them reading. It's like he doesn't see the importance of the reading itself, only the content.

I think this comment from the original article author irked me more than the article itself. He was responding to someone who VERY MUCH DID NOT MAKE THIS ARGUMENT. Classic logical fallacy (pick out something from your opponent's argument, twist it into something they didn't actually say, and attack that instead).

And seriously, so what if the thing a kid wants to read at the beginning is a cereal box, or a comic book, or a monster truck magazine. So what. They're showing you where their interests lie. Take that. Work with it. Find books that will bridge them into your so-called "elevated" literature based on WHAT THEY ARE SHOWING YOU THEY ENJOY.

timewaster · Jan 8, 2012

Toothpaste said:
I have seen, in the last couple years, and definitely inspired by TWILIGHT's success, a great number of books published by big houses about girls who are supposed to be strong, but aren't really...
Further, and this is where things get really subjective, I think the writing in some of these books isn't very good. ..
And further, the unwillingness of the YA community to be critical of itself outside of the pub (because at the pub then you hear the real sentiments of insiders), makes our community seem childish, and clique-ish, and seeming immature writers where everyone wins a trophy.

I haven't read much of this material, but that is the impression I've received. I don't think it is fair to say that writers are not critical of each other that really isn't so and I'm not sure it would help to be more public about it. We are also highly critical of publishers when they chase big bucks at the expense of trying to sell 'good' books. ( I don't think it makes business sense to pursue read a likes either but maybe that's just me.) We've all got a living to make and I'm not about to knock any writer jumping on a bandwagon to pay their bills.

"Against Walter Dean Myers" & the "insipidness" of YA

might be a giant

might be a giant

I'm a monster. I'm a saint.

A Gentleman of a refined age...

oh so shiny

A Gentleman of a refined age...

Hanging out in Medieval Castles

You can't sit with us!

A Gentleman of a refined age...

might be a giant

You can't sit with us!

Mother Flippin' Rhymnosorous

Cory

present

Sophipygian

for the love of love

An old, sappy, and happy one.

present

You can't sit with us!

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

The cake is a lie. But still cake.

You can't sit with us!

might be a giant

present