[HN Gopher] A book Stanley Kubrick didn't want anyone to read is...
___________________________________________________________________
A book Stanley Kubrick didn't want anyone to read is being
published
Author : SirLJ
Score : 145 points
Date : 2024-05-05 11:40 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| napierzaza wrote:
| So the guy writing the book wanted Lolita to be a lot hornier?
| dirtyhippiefree wrote:
| He refers to deviations from the book...I see what you did
| there...
| block_dagger wrote:
| Well, she is a "nymphette" in the book. That novel is so well
| written and not even in the author's native language.
| aaplok wrote:
| Actually in the book she is really not. She is a 12 year old
| child being sexualised in the mind of the narrator. She
| doesn't _act_ seductively, the narrator sees whatever she
| does in a perverted way.
|
| There is a famous interview on French TV where Nabokov says
| as much (in French) [0]
|
| [0] https://www.ina.fr/actualites-ina/mon-archive-
| preferee/mon-a...
| themaninthedark wrote:
| I suppose that your interpretation would be dependent on if
| you are postmodernist or not and if you believe in the
| death of the author.
|
| I have never read the book or seen the file but the work is
| very interesting to me as when it get brought up people
| will start claiming all sorts of things from it.
|
| I think the most insane from my point of view was when I
| heard/saw(can't remember if online or in person) an
| argument that all men are perverted and want to rape
| children. The proof was quotes from Lolita....
| aaplok wrote:
| I recommend you to read the book, I think that the film
| doesn't (can't?) do it justice. The book being written
| from the point of view of the narrator is crucial: the
| reader is put in the mind of a pedophile (we are told
| that he is in jail). I also suggest imagining the girl as
| a child, before puberty at the start of the story.
|
| The case study of Lolita is interesting because there are
| two competing readings. The fact that the character is
| often associated to seduction and jailbait in popular
| culture is arguably symptomatic of a culture of blaming
| the victims of this kind of crimes. Obviously not all men
| are perverts but I sometimes wonder if those of us who
| aren't don't underestimate the number of those who are.
| fermigier wrote:
| Kubrick's film simplified the psychological depth and literary
| nuances of Vladimir Nabokov's 1955 novel, adapting its themes
| and character dynamics to fit both the cinematic form and the
| censorship norms of its time. Constrained by the Hays Code and
| societal taboos of the 1960s, it toned down the explicitness of
| the sexual elements of the story. The was more overt humor and
| satire in the film, partly as a way to address the censorship
| regulations of the time. This approach changes the tone from
| the intensely personal and tragic to something lighter and more
| accessible, though still deeply disturbing.
|
| Note that Nabokov was credited as the screenplay writer for the
| movie (Kubrick is uncredited).
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056193/fullcredits/
| ghaff wrote:
| The criticism seems pretty fair. Not sure how filmable the
| book is especially given the constraints of the time.
| trwm wrote:
| The constraints of today would be much worse. I'd go so far
| as saying that making even Kubricks version today would be
| impossible.
| ghaff wrote:
| That may be fair. Arguably different constraints. But
| would probably be pretty radioactive especially with a
| Lolita at an age faithful to the book.
| Detrytus wrote:
| How does that compare to 1997 "Lolita" with Jeremy Irons?
| victorstanciu wrote:
| I guess it shows that no matter how objectively successful you
| are, your skin can still be see-through thin.
| dmonitor wrote:
| It sounds like Kubrick felt betrayed. He collaborated with the
| author extensively up until receiving a draft.
| miguelazo wrote:
| I was thinking the same, but it's easy to do so when it's not
| _your_ life's work-- especially something that took so much
| time and dedication. The quote about the Lolita film was pretty
| damning, and imagine the shame of accepting that you had
| botched the adaptation of such a prolofic novel.
| iainmerrick wrote:
| So what, everyone is supposed to pretend that everything
| Kubrick touched was completely perfect?
|
| That would be a hagiography, not a serious artistic critique.
|
| It seems more than fair to point out that Kubrick was touchy
| and thin-skinned. You could argue that it's an inseparable
| part of his overall genius -- but only if you're allowed to
| criticise him in the first place!
| ashurov wrote:
| So, why can they publish it now? His death doesn't nullify the
| agreement, does it?
| ggm wrote:
| I would think it does, yes. It's personal rights, not concrete
| assets.
|
| Dead people have no right to privacy in law as I understand it.
|
| Not a lawyer, not in the economies involved in this.
|
| "it depends"
| Kinrany wrote:
| Was it because of the privacy laws that they needed his
| agreement in the first place?
|
| It seems he contributed, so I assume otherwise.
| bhaney wrote:
| My understanding is that they _didn 't_ need his agreement
| in the first place, but they voluntarily entered into a
| contract with Kubrick that gave him the final say on
| publishing in exchange for him agreeing to be interviewed
| for the book.
| ggm wrote:
| Contracts to personal affairs not real property, I
| believe would terminate on his death unless deliberately
| constructed to use e.g. a trust. I repeat, I'm not a
| lawyer.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| If they didn't need his agreement, but entered into
| contract anyway that gave so much power. Why? Seems like
| we are still missing something here. The article didn't
| get into the legal side.
| bhaney wrote:
| I said it in my previous comment and it's also in the
| article. The "why" is so Kubrick would agree to be
| interviewed for the book. They gave him publishing veto
| rights that he otherwise wouldn't have had in exchange
| for that, which is pretty common and typically well worth
| it.
| tiborsaas wrote:
| > Dead people have no right to privacy in law as I understand
| it.
|
| Grim reminder to better control privacy while we are still
| alive.
| notnaut wrote:
| I mean. Or a relieving reminder that we have nothing to
| hide but our skeletons and everything comes out in the
| wash.
| chefkd wrote:
| Does that mean dead people have no copyright rights as well?
| Curious what makes image likeness different than any other
| asset
| ggm wrote:
| In some economies, Copyright falls to the heirs or assigned
| owner for a stated period after death. From the University
| of Melbourne:
|
| _Copyright generally lasts 70 years after the death of the
| creator or after the first year of publication, depending
| on the type of material and /or when it was first
| published: Artistic works, including photographs, Dramatic
| works._
|
| https://copyright.unimelb.edu.au/shared/basic-principles-
| of-...
| prmoustache wrote:
| I don't think a contract still stands when one of the party do
| not exists anymore.
|
| And dead people don't have rights past what they have decided
| on inheritance and even this can be sometimes overturned by
| justice. This is the reason wealthy people sometimes give their
| wealth to a foundation but if the foundation doesn't find a way
| to make it sustainable and money runs out it also ends up
| dissolved regardless of the cause it was bound to serve.
| toast0 wrote:
| Generally, a party has successors that would benefit from the
| contract.
|
| But without seeing the contract, we don't really know.
| Perhaps it only bound the original publisher, and not the
| author, but some other contract had bound the author to only
| publish through that publisher, and that publication contract
| is no longer in force. Who knows, the article doesn't tell
| us.
| fastball wrote:
| Doesn't seem that controversial. A publisher commissioned a book
| about the films of Stanley Kubrick, agreeing that Kubrick would
| be able to veto publishing of the text if he didn't like it.
|
| He didn't like it, didn't sign off on it, and the book was never
| published.
| textfiles wrote:
| From the article, it appears the big sadness for the author was
| he wrote back and said he was happy to work with Kubrick to
| discuss getting it to where he was more comfortable with it,
| Kubrick never responded, and then sent lawyers. That's all
| that's rough for the writer, here.
| fastball wrote:
| That's not very surprising either though.
|
| I don't know many artists who would enjoy the prospect of
| justifying their art to someone who was skeptical of its
| merit from the start.
|
| Not saying Kubrick did the right thing, just that it seems
| very on-brand for most people in his position.
| ZiiS wrote:
| The problem is, if you have a veto and don't use it; you are
| basically endorsing the book.
| chefkd wrote:
| I'm confused isn't sending lawyers basically the same thing
| as a veto? Or am I misunderstanding
| ZiiS wrote:
| I this case the author agreed that Kubrick would read the
| final book and agree if it should be published. This
| removes the option he chose with all other books of
| simply ignoring them. Very different then Streisand
| effecting an independent author.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > From the article, it appears the big sadness for the author
| was he wrote back and said he was happy to work with Kubrick
| to discuss getting it to where he was more comfortable with
| it, Kubrick never responded, and then sent lawyers. That's
| all that's rough for the writer, here.
|
| Very. Who knows how many hours of sweat he poured into it,
| only to get it shelved when it was done.
|
| This, IMHO, is a good reason to recommend everyone read The
| Mom Test at some point in their adult life.
|
| What _probably_ happened was that the author got the initial
| agreement from Kubric by being so persistent that Kubric
| agreed just to make them go away. A lukewarm reception from
| someone is just their polite way of saying "no".
| latexr wrote:
| > This, IMHO, is a good reason to recommend everyone read
| The Mom Test at some point in their adult life.
|
| It is not. These things aren't comparable. Most people will
| get nothing out of that book.
|
| > What _probably_ happened was that the author got the
| initial agreement from Kubric by being so persistent that
| Kubric agreed just to make them go away.
|
| Why speculate to excuse Kubrick and victim blame Hornick,
| when the answer is in the article? He was commissioned to
| write the book:
|
| > He had been commissioned to write the very first book on
| Kubrick by cinema specialist The Tantivy Press more than 50
| years ago.
| yareal wrote:
| Saying I'd like to work with you to get this shippable is
| saying "I'm willing to let you put in an enormous amount of
| free labor as an editor."
| smitty1e wrote:
| The question raised is whether one can be as great an artist as
| Kubrick without succumbing to taking oneself too seriously.
| tacocataco wrote:
| We enjoy art from artists deep in addictions or mental health
| crisis.
|
| Art can be morbid. Like an ongoing disaster that unfolds
| before us, we can't look away sometimes.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| From article it sounded like the clause to 'veto' was really
| meant as a fact check. Kubrick would be able to get chance to
| leave sections out, or clarify. That he just rejected the whole
| thing was the surprise.
|
| Like if someone hired you to do a Web Site, and there was of
| course some stipulation that you get to review it. Then you
| complain the buttons are the wrong color and just reject the
| whole thing.
| Hard_Space wrote:
| I have to say that the 'critical' quotations from the book are
| uncharacteristic of a project where the target of the biography
| (and this is a kind of biography) is cooperating and
| participating - and particularly when they have veto.
|
| Most writers know the score in this respect: unauthorized
| coverage is harder-hitting and may be more accurate, whereas
| authorized coverage has inside scoops, but is unlikely to be
| allowed to contain very critical barbs.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Think the issue is, Kubrick was so sensitive, that even the
| most mild criticism was taken badly. So the author knows the
| score, and treads lightly, and is still jumped on.
|
| The author was hired to do a 'nice' book, and was pretty nice
| but the customer was a Prima donna and rejected it anyway.
|
| Think we've all encountered bad customers like this.
| Hard_Space wrote:
| I don't know - I think the author was hoping for tremendous
| indulgence from Kubrick when attempting to get him to green-
| light quotes like:
|
| _' There are good things in Lolita. But in too many respects
| it squanders, impoverishes and conventionalises its source
| material, draining it of its complexity, nymphetry and
| eroticism.'_
|
| It's valid criticism, because it's a point of view, but I
| wouldn't expect anything quite that harsh in a collaborative
| work.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Since Kubrick had opportunity to respond, he was able to
| respond to the draft, he could have used it as opportunity
| to explain the censorship of the time that lead to that
| outcome. The article even mentions that later Kubrick
| tended to agree with that view of Lolita.
| makingstuffs wrote:
| Fun fact you can visit Stanley Kuberick's old house in North
| London (near Elstree).
|
| You can't go inside, mind. It is surrounded by lots of farm and
| woodlands, however, so theres that.
| lqet wrote:
| > "There are good things in Lolita. But in too many respects it
| squanders, impoverishes and conventionalises its source material,
| draining it of its complexity, nymphetry and eroticism."
|
| I think anyone who has read Nabokov's novel would agree that
| Lolita _really_ isn 't a great adaptation of the book. I think it
| is by far Kubrick's weakest film. There is a deep cynic darkness
| to the book that the movie misses completely. In later
| interviews, Kubrick always tried to downplay this and only
| admitted that the movie lacked eroticism:
|
| > "If I could do the film over again, I would have stressed the
| erotic component of their relationship with the same weight
| Nabokov did," the director admitted. "But that is the only major
| area where I believe the film is susceptible to valid criticism."
|
| I sometimes wonder how a Lolita movie by Francis Ford Coppola
| would've turned out (maybe with Gene Hackman).
| cubefox wrote:
| There are also things that are still in the realm of the
| acceptable in a book but that would go too far in a movie.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Perhaps in 1962, a big studio. But if _Lolita_ had been
| tackled just a decade later when we had entered in the
| anything-goes era of filmmaking....
| onemoresoop wrote:
| There's another version of Lolita by Adrian Lyne starring
| Jeremy Irons. It's quite a bit different having that it was
| filmed in a different era.
| lqet wrote:
| I highly recommend the documentary _Filmworker_ to anyone
| interested in Stanley Kubrick 's character.
|
| It's about Leon Vitali, the actor who played Lord Bullingdon (the
| neurotic brother of Lady Lyndon) in _Barry Lyndon_. After filming
| Barry Lyndon, he quit acting and became Kubricks personal
| assistant / factotum for over 20 years. Although some would say
| he was Kubrick's personal slave. It is utterly shocking to see
| how badly Kubrick treated him at times. Vitali did the work of
| 4-5 assistants, completely neglected his family, destroyed his
| health, spend the best years of his life re-cutting scenes until
| 5 in the morning while listening to Kubrick's violent tantrums,
| and ended his successful acting career for him. But apparently he
| was paid so little by Kubrick that he ran into financial trouble
| after the director's death. Yet for some mysterious reason, he
| remained completely loyal to his master until his own death in
| 2022.
| voltaireodactyl wrote:
| There are many people who believe that something outside
| themselves is more important than their own personal happiness
| or even basic sustenance/stability. Whether that's something to
| be admired, damned, or merely observed -- it would seem Vitali
| made choices for reasons worth it to him, personally.
| crazydoggers wrote:
| Lots of people make bad choices for themselves and others due
| to psychological control, manipulation, and/or abuse, such as
| people who willingly join cults.
|
| I'm not saying that is what happened to Vitali, but I think
| it's the open question being alluded to.
|
| It is important to be aware and concerned about cultures or
| industries that foster cult like personality leaders.
| slibhb wrote:
| Exactly right. But people today are extremely resistant to
| this fact.
|
| It's very clear that many, many people would give up nearly
| anything -- including years of their lives -- to work with
| someone as talented as Kubrick. Is that crazy? I wouldn't do
| it, but others would.
| kjs3 wrote:
| He had a family. While clearly he thought it was worth it
| personally, he wasn't making choices just for himself.
| ycombinete wrote:
| Sounds like a two person cult.
| bitwize wrote:
| Sounds like an Apple employee to Steve Jobs.
| throw310822 wrote:
| > Lord Bullingdon (the neurotic brother of Lady Lyndon)
|
| It's her son from the first marriage.
| lqet wrote:
| You are right of course!
| blaerk wrote:
| Leons daughter Vera talked a bit about her father, his
| relationship to Kubrick, art and family in "Sommar i P1", a
| Swedish national radio show where people in "public interest"
| talk about whatever for an hour or so. It's pretty interesting
| and provide some insights, but unfortunately it's only in
| Swedish
|
| https://sverigesradio.se/avsnitt/1319508#
| raymond_goo wrote:
| can someone post some cliffnotes please?
| itsthejb wrote:
| Also very enjoyable, Emilio D'Alessandro's book Stanley Kubrick
| and Me
| moosemess wrote:
| How is this any different than say working at Tesla today?
| sangnoir wrote:
| Shades of that Twitter executive who shared a picture of
| herself in a sleeping bag at the office, presumably doing
| "hardcore engineering". She later got fired regardless.
| scottyah wrote:
| Anecdotally, some managers like to show how they're present
| physically yet they don't actually contribute anything.
| freejazz wrote:
| He also played the red cloak.
| xchip wrote:
| Nice sales trick
| latexr wrote:
| Not publishing a book at the height of the subject's
| popularity, but instead launching it half a century later when
| the money and recognition won't matter is a nice sales trick?
| psychoslave wrote:
| Sure, maybe this would have provided more attention then, but
| also more troubles to the author and publisher. So the "look
| that stuff that a famous person absolutely didn't want this
| to be read by anyone" is still a good click bait.
| amanzi wrote:
| I love Kubrick movies, but my one bit of criticism I'd give (from
| me - a random guy on the internet, who's never made a movie), is
| that both 2001 and The Shining both require the viewer to have
| read the respective books to fully appreciate them.
|
| I know it's a cliche to harp on about the ending of 2001, but it
| really does make a lot more sense after having read the book,
| which in turn makes the movie a lot more enjoyable.
|
| With The Shining, you really need to read the book to fully
| understand the back-story to Jack's issues, and Danny's
| premonitions. I was amazed at how much the movie left out, and
| after reading the book, the movie is so much better.
| mateus1 wrote:
| I do not think you have to fully rationally grasp the ending
| for 2001 to be an impactful film.
|
| I'd argue it is a masterpiece _because_ of that uneasiness and
| befuddlement and that is one of the ways it leaves a mark on
| you.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| I agree with the befuddlement aspect that makes the mind
| rummage on it from time to time long after watching the
| movie. It's an incomplete resolution that causes us to think
| about the movie. It could be frustrating at times but I guess
| that's the whole point.
| ghusto wrote:
| Agreed, and I'd be comfortable calling this incompetence.
|
| Triggers cinemaphiles to hear a director that's supposed to be
| ome of the finest being called incompetent, but I can't see how
| it's defendable. He failed at the _one thing_ a film is
| supposed to do.
| bondarchuk wrote:
| Cinemaphiles TRIGGERED by this simple critique! (come on
| man...)
| latexr wrote:
| > Agreed, and I'd be comfortable calling this incompetence.
|
| You do know that in the case of 2001, the movie and book were
| done simultaneously, right? There's no failure of adaptation
| because it wasn't one. It makes no sense to fault the movie
| by comparing with the book in this case.
|
| > He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do.
|
| Which is what? Entertain? Make a profit? Be culturally
| relevant to an extent that is still felt decades later?
|
| There is no rule which says a movie has to be a coherent
| linear story that spoon feeds you to be significant, good, or
| artistically relevant.
| ghusto wrote:
| > You do know that in the case of 2001, the movie and book
| were done simultaneously, right? There's no failure of
| adaptation because it wasn't one. It makes no sense to
| fault the movie by comparing with the book in this case.
|
| Yes, I know that. I don't see how it makes it a nonsensical
| comparison though. One form was done well, the other
| incompetently. It's not like they marketed it as "hey, you
| really need both for the full experience".
|
| >> He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do.
|
| > Which is what? Entertain? Make a profit? Be culturally
| relevant to an extent that is still felt decades later?
|
| To convey something in the audio/visual format. It doesn't
| get more basic. Whether that's for pure entertainment,
| artistic intent, whatever.
|
| > There is no rule which says a movie has to be a coherent
| linear story that spoon feeds you to be significant, good,
| or artistically relevant.
|
| Neither is there anything saying that you're safe from
| criticism if your work isn't coherent either. There was a
| very clear, coherent story to 2001, and Kubrick failed to
| convey it.
| garyrob wrote:
| > but I can't see how it's defendable
|
| Perhaps the key here is what YOU don't see, not the merit of
| the film.
|
| 2001 was ranked the 6th greatest movie of all time in the
| Sight and Sound poll, which is probably the world's most
| respected poll of industry professionals.
|
| And it was ranked #1 by their poll of directors:
| https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-
| sound/directors-100-greates...
|
| Could it possibly be that these directors know something you
| don't?
|
| For my own part, it's been my favorite movie since I first
| saw it in 1968 and I've probably seen it 20 times since then.
| ghusto wrote:
| Appealing to authority doesn't negate what I said. There
| was a clear narrative to the story, Kubrick failed to
| convey it. That is poor film making.
| garyrob wrote:
| Ooookay. You are the world's greatest expert in film-
| making. Thank you.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I've heard that 2001 was very much enjoyed by people who
| would come to the theater high. The visuals were a great trip
| for them, and helped make the movie a big success!
|
| P.S. I've seen the movie countless times (never high), and
| sometimes I'll put it on as simply moving wallpaper.
| tacocataco wrote:
| Art is subjective. There is nothing wrong with having your
| own interpretation
| tambourine_man wrote:
| "Leaving things out" is sometimes one of cinema's greatest
| strengths.
|
| I'll never forget a documentary I saw on martial arts film
| editors. They will deliberately cut the very frame where a fist
| would touch an actor's face. And not at all because it was
| badly choreographed. Instead, they realized that the strongest
| punch is the one you never see. It's the one you complete with
| your imagination. And there's no competing with that.
|
| Likewise, leaving some of the plot to be inferred by the
| audience is a powerful narrative mechanism.
| eggoa wrote:
| It would have been tough since the book and movie for 2001 were
| created concurrently.
| pinewurst wrote:
| I'm pretty sure Clarke's 2001 book was post-screenplay and
| possibly post-movie.
| munchler wrote:
| No. It was developed concurrently with the film version and
| parts of it were even based on Clarke's earlier short stories
| (e.g. The Sentinel).
| WalterBright wrote:
| The book was written concurrently with the movie. See the
| book "The Lost Worlds of 2001" for various versions of it.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-2001-Arthur-
| Clarke/dp/0451...
| munchler wrote:
| I have to disagree with you about 2001. Both endings were epic,
| but Clarke's vision in the book was more rational and
| scientific, while Kubrick's is more impressionistic and
| mystical. As a result, the two effectively diverge at the end
| and the book doesn't really "explain" the movie. (Although I
| certainly do encourage everyone to read the book as well.)
| slibhb wrote:
| Those movies don't require you to read the books. They leave
| something to the imagination, which some people don't like. But
| other people do like it!
| freejazz wrote:
| >is that both 2001 and The Shining both require the viewer to
| have read the respective books to fully appreciate them.
|
| They do not in any way require that, at all.
| numeromancer wrote:
| Stanley Kubrick was one of that kind of people who cannot take
| criticism of anything they do.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| That's too bad. I understand that as a young filmmaker with an
| ego, but your supposed to lose that ego as you mature both
| emotionally and as an artist.
| psychoslave wrote:
| As surprising as it might be, narcissistic personality
| disorder won't go away simply as people age, especially if
| they live in a social bubble where they are sent overall
| continuous positive feedback that society is very pleased at
| the global result of their behavior.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| Do you suppose Kubrick may have suffered from narcissistic
| personality disorder?
| psychoslave wrote:
| Actually, no.
|
| Apart that he was a film maker, I don't know anything
| about him. If anything, this thread thrown more claims on
| the person than I have ever read before, as I couldn't
| care less about topics that can perfectly fit gossip
| magazines.
|
| Plus not being a doctor, I'm not even qualified to make a
| compelling diagnosis.
|
| All that said, cliches don't come from anywhere, and
| tyrannic personalities who destroy everybody around them
| as sure as they get social glorification for practicing
| some art is a well established one, so I wouldn't be
| surprised that it would be the case. However I would
| rather have Picasso coming to my mind.
| Towaway69 wrote:
| Directors to a certain extent need to dominate, it's the
| nature of the job.
|
| If you're the one organising 30 to 50 people on a set with a
| good many of them also being egos (think actors for example),
| you have to make hard decisions and to certain extent be that
| unpopular leader.
|
| On the other hand, there also plenty of soft spoken directors
| that use soft power to manage a set.
|
| Just want to point out that directing isn't an easy job at
| times and how that gets handled various from director to
| director.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| Kubrick movies left a big impact on me, whatever he did it
| seems to have worked. But I also think he was a bully who
| it was very hard and damaging to work with.
| danjoredd wrote:
| Good, if Stanley was going to bully them into not publishing I am
| glad it got published eventually. I like Stanley Kubrick's films
| but every time I read about him he comes off as a generally
| unlikeable guy.
| dmead wrote:
| I am a literate adult. When I read this title I saw Aurthur C.
| Clarke's face.
| Nostromos wrote:
| If you don't want your art to exist beyond you, destroy it. Once
| you die, whatever remains is fair game.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-07 23:02 UTC)