blogspot
visitor
Franny and Zooey | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

salinger_pic.jpg
100 Books in One Year: Franny and Zooey by J.D. Salinger

Cannonball Read / Sabrina

Book Reviews | November 11, 2008 | Comments (47)


The book is divided into two sections. The first, “Franny,” shows Franny Glass visiting her boyfriend Lane Coutell at college. After a brief meeting at the train station, the rest all takes place at lunch. Lane is somewhat of a pretentious twit; he takes Franny to the right, intellectual spot, proud to have a “right-looking girl” with him, and blathers on about a professor who, in his opinion, doesn’t know shit from shoeshine. Franny’s also pretentious, in an “I’m too artistic for college” way — she’s sick of all the egos and fake poets who don’t “leave something beautiful after you get off the page.” She seems to have lost all interest in Lane, and her guilt over that causes her to swing between overly sweet and overly antagonistic.

Both of them take turns talking at length, but neither really listens to the other. Lane spends 15 minutes talking about a paper he wants to publish, only to have Franny ask for his martini olive. Franny describes The Way of a Pilgrim, a book about a man traveling across Russia while continuously practicing the Jesus Prayer, only to have Lane admonish his frog legs to hold still.

This first chapter shows the beginning of Franny’s nervous breakdown. She’s anxious and sweaty the entire time, she cries in the bathroom, and she finally faints as they’re leaving the restaurant. When she comes to and is left alone for a minute, she begins silently reciting the Jesus Prayer to herself, and this is where “Franny” ends.

“Zooey” picks up a couple days later. Franny has come home, to her parents and her older brother Zooey, and spent her time crying and praying non-stop. While “Franny” was narrated by an anonymous third-person, “Zooey” is narrated by the second-eldest Glass brother, Buddy, and holy cow is he long-winded. Yes, he’s aware of this, but that still doesn’t make me any more interested in spending a full page on the contents of the Glass’s medicine cabinet. I’m sure it’s a fascinating, insightful list, as far as lists of objects in cabinets go, but at the end of the day it’s a long-ass list that I could do no more than skim.

This chapter opens with Zooey reading a letter in the bathtub. The 13-page letter is Buddy’s attempt at apologizing for fucking up Zooey and Franny. Apparently Buddy and the oldest, late Glass brother, Seymour, took over F and Z’s education and made it all about religion and spirituality. Seymour’s ghost, and the Glass kids’ early exposure and domination on “It’s a Wise Child,” a radio quiz show, hangs oppressively over almost everything in this chapter.

Zooey’s mother Bessie barges in on him and proceeds to chain-smoke and fret over Franny while dodging Zooey’s insulting, sarcastic comments to her. This one ostensibly simple scene lasts almost 70 pages, yet didn’t get boring. It sets up Zooey as a hideously insensitive, too smart for his own good jerk quite well. The action, if I can call it that, moves to the living room, where Zooey wakes up Franny and proceeds to spend 50 pages alternately bitching about how nobody in show business is a true artist and hectoring Franny about how she doesn’t really understand the Jesus Prayer, or Jesus himself.

Oh god, I would despise Zooey if I ever had to share a dinner table with him. Blathering on about how nothing on stage or film or, especially, TV, is good, or beautiful, or real art. What a pretentious, sarcastic, artsy-fartsy bastard, I would mutter to myself under my breath. At one point, while talking to Franny, he looks out the window and sees a dog searching for a little girl. He marvels at the “sublime” scene taking place on the street, unhampered by writers or directors, and I couldn’t help thinking of Ricky Fitts in American Beauty, talking about the beauty of a grocery bag floating in the wind.

Anyways, “Zooey” wraps up when he walks into Buddy and Seymour’s old bedroom and calls the living room from its private line, pretending to be Buddy for Franny. Franny spends some time bitching about Zooey to Buddy-Zooey on the phone before realizing who it really is, and then they bond over a shared interpretation of some advice that Seymour gave them as children. Like the previous chapter, this one ends with Franny lying down, staring up at the ceiling, but she’s no longer muttering the Jesus Prayer to herself, simply smiling until she falls asleep.

Now that I’ve spent ages describing my shortest book yet, I’ll admit that I don’t know how to react to it. Is it a character study? Philosophical debate? Religious enlightenment story? Whatever it is, I do know there’s a lot of inaction going on, unless you count lips flapping endlessly. Both siblings talk about how they know better than to act the way they do, yet can’t stop-this is underscored in Zooey’s movements being described as those of a marionette. Zooey, for example, knows that he goes on at length and sucks the fun out of things… you know, he put it best himself, so I’ll quote him:

We’re freaks, that’s all. Those two bastards got us nice and early and made us into freaks with freakish standards. We’re the Tattooed Lady, and we’re never going to have a minute’s peace, the rest of our lives, till everybody else is tattooed, too. On top of everything else, we’ve got ‘Wise Child’ complexes. We’ve never really got off the goddam air. Not one of us. We don’t talk, we hold forth. We don’t converse, we expound. At least I do.


There really is a lot of uncommunication, a lot of talking to somebody who’s not there in this story. Lane essentially talks to himself during lunch, Franny doesn’t even look at him when she’s talking, Bessie muses out loud in the bathroom, Zooey ignores Franny’s pleas to stop being an asshole. Letters, a form of fractured, distant communication, figure prominently in both sections, Zooey has a habit of calling people “buddy,” as if he’s always talking to his absent brother no matter who’s actually in the room with him, and of course all the children grew up performing for anonymous people listening to them on the radio. Zooey even has to leave the room, call Franny on the phone, and pretend to be somebody else to be able to ask her how she is and actually wait for an answer.

F and Z was engrossing, and pages flew by, but I’m overall I’m not sure if I liked it as much as I respected it. There were certain turns of phrase that I loved, though, and I’ll leave you with some of them:

Bessie closed the door behind her instantly, as someone does who has been waging a long, long war on behalf of her progeny against post-bath drafts.

A minor groundswell sounded behind the shower curtain, as though a rather delinquent porpoise were suddenly at play.

Franny was still stroking [the cat] Bloomberg, still succoring him, forcibly, into the subtle and difficult world outside warm afghans.

‘The cigars are ballast, sweetheart. Sheer ballast. If he didn’t have a cigar to hold on to, his feet would leave the ground. We’d never see our Zooey again.’

There were several experienced verbal stunt pilots in the Glass family, but this last little remark perhaps Zooey alone was coordinated well enough to bring in safely over a telephone.

This review is part of the Cannonball Read series. Details are here and the growing number of participants and their blogs are here. And check here for more of Sabrina’s reviews.


Oldboy Remake | DVD Releases 11/11/08





Comments

I have always sort of looked at Zooey as an older Holden Caulfield.

Posted by: Joshiepants at November 11, 2008 8:33 AM

I'm not sure what to make of this, which is strange considering that I both read this book and wrote a paper on it in a high school Honors English class...some thirty years ago. Which is my way of leading in to saying that I don't remember shit about it. So I think this is a pretty good review in that it resonates with my sense of this as a book that I should read yet one that turns out to have not made a lasting impression.

I went through a Salinger phase in high school (wonder what triggered that?) and determined that I would become some sort of Salinger scholar. Trouble was that pretty much all his writing is flacid as hell -- a point which Sabrina echoed, I believe -- and I was quite sick of him by the time I was done. The catchy turns of phrase noted by Sabrina are like the hooks in an otherwise forgettable pop song; it sounds good at first but doesn't hold up over time.

Posted by: Che Grovera at November 11, 2008 8:36 AM

I never understood the Salinger mystique. His characters don't seem remotely realistic to me, and even if by some bizarre circumstances there was a human being who acted like a Salinger character, you would hate him in the first five minutes of conversation/monologue. What is it that resonates about those characters with so many people? They are introspective to the point of absurdity, everything is turned inwards, and while they analyze every motivation, they don't act to change a damn thing.

In real life, these people would be drunks or drug addicts. That's the closest I've seen to a Salinger level of self-obsession.

Posted by: Wednesday at November 11, 2008 8:54 AM

Ooof. The Salinger hate. My brain. It sobs. My heart. It weeps. My soul. It cries.

I'm going to have to take this sadness out on someone. Phillip! Real-time review of Beverly Hills Dachshund. Hop to.

Posted by: Dustin at November 11, 2008 9:02 AM

"...all his writing is flaccid as hell..."


*chuckle* *chuckle*

*snort* *snort*

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 11, 2008 9:06 AM

I think what really interested me about the Glass family started with Seymour as the main character in "A Perfect Day for Bananafish", the first story of Nine stories, representing (from my understanding of Salinger's focus) the youngest soul of the nine stages of enlightenment that were represented. I think all the members of the Glass family are young souls- completley self obsessed and have no ablity to change. I don't think that Salinger likes Franny and Zooey himeself but rather lets them pontificate endlessly to show just how far off the mark they are. The Glass familiy is SUPPOSED to be unlikeable and only understood (really) by each other.

And the language is delightul. I remember I was really fond of a Franny quote in high school that stated (I'm paraphrasing as it has been years since I"ve read the book) , "I'm sick of just liking people. I wish to god I could meet someone to respect" Sometimes even my post high school self feels that way.

Also- The Royal Tenenbaums reminded me SO much of the Glass family. Has Anderson named Franny and Zooey as an influence?

Posted by: Miskubelik at November 11, 2008 9:08 AM

I beg to differ, Dustin. Mine, at least, isn't Salinger hate. It's more at indifference. That's probably an even worse fate for a writer, but it is what it is.

Holden Caulfield was a revolutionary character in a time crying out for dramatic difference. As Wednesday so astutely pointed out, though, he -- like so many Salinger characters -- was a self-absorbed jerk. It's no wonder that Catcher in the Rye finds an eager audience in teenagers and young adults. Life goes on. Then what? Salinger himself was a reclusive jerk. Go figure.

Posted by: Che Grovera at November 11, 2008 9:17 AM

Glad to get a rise out of you, Slim. Thanks for not making as big a deal as I probably would have about my typo...

Posted by: Che Grovera at November 11, 2008 9:25 AM

I find myself too impatient with the selb-absorbed characters to even enjoy the artistic turns of phrase. I want to slap them and tell them to get over themselves.

Posted by: Nimue at November 11, 2008 9:30 AM

Holden Caulfield was a revolutionary character in a time crying out for dramatic difference. As Wednesday so astutely pointed out, though, he -- like so many Salinger characters -- was a self-absorbed jerk. It's no wonder that Catcher in the Rye finds an eager audience in teenagers and young adults. Life goes on. Then what? Salinger himself was a reclusive jerk. Go figure.

Fuck. All. YES.

Salinger and Catcher in the Rye has been brought up before, and I say the same thing then as I do now: I simply cannot stand that asshole Holden Caufield and by extension the entire book and Salinger for writing it. But not as much as my 10th grade English teacher for making us read it and whatever beatnik bastards keep lauding it (sorry Dustin).

And you forgot delusional "revolutionary" assassins, Che. They love this fucking book, and you know how they need their self-delusion.

Posted by: Vermillion at November 11, 2008 9:33 AM

Well, I was going to comment, but then Vermillion went and did it for me. Damn. I guess I have no excuse but to get back to work.

Posted by: dsbs at November 11, 2008 10:04 AM

Come on! No defenders of Salinger. Not one? Nobody even wants to thank him for inspiring half of the last 30 years of decent pop literature? Or Nick Hornby? Or the entire genre of dick lit?

Nobody? Man alive. I write for the wrong site.

Star Wars sucks.

Posted by: Dustin at November 11, 2008 10:08 AM

My creative writing professor in college told me about a completely alien culture when we had a class discussion on Franny. When the story came out in The New Yorker he read it immediately, as did many of his fellow school mates. They spent an entire night at a bar drinking and talking about it and heated arguments revolved around whether or not she was pregnant.

Can you imagine knowing a dozen people who had all independently read a brand new magazine published story and were able to hold a long discussion about it a few days later? Maybe a movie or TV or a children's novel, but a contemporary fiction short story?

All I usually have as a cultural touchstone I with other people I meet is a guilty yet passionate love for Highlander.

Posted by: SugarFree at November 11, 2008 10:15 AM

Nobody? Man alive. I write for the wrong site.

Star Wars sucks.

Posted by: Dustin at November 11, 2008 10:08 AM

-------------------------------------------------

You are gonna reap the whirlwind little man.

One of these days someone is gonna MESS. YOU. UP.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 11, 2008 10:23 AM

My brother wants to name his kids Franny and Zooey. His dog's name is Salinger. Though I've never been totally wet for J.D., I've always had a soft spot for him based strictly on how much my beautiful, sweet, gay-as-hell brother loves him.

Posted by: Amelia Bedelia at November 11, 2008 10:45 AM

I'm shocked! No one here loves Salinger? I'm sincerely shocked. I love my little Glass family, effed up as they are.

Posted by: katie at November 11, 2008 10:47 AM

MESS YOU UP, esse.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 11, 2008 10:47 AM

I'll go to bat for Franny & Zooey, as it has been one of my favorite books for years. I will first admit that I DO find Franny annoying, but that's an important part of her character--I don't think she's SUPPOSED to be likable. The dynamics of the Glass family--both those present in the story and those who are equally strongly felt but not present--are fascinating. I love the character of Zooey and find him hilarious, particularly during the bathroom scene, and Salinger's descriptions (some of which were highlighted in the review) are fantastic. I guess I just appreciate the idea of watching these two people begin to come to grips with their pasts and how they've been effected by their brothers' efforts to "help" them. It in some ways does remind me of The Royal Tennenbaums, except the characters in the novel seem much more self-aware of what's caused their problems, incapable though they may be of solving them.

Sorry this is so long, but I love this book, and it makes me sad to see it so maligned.

That said, Holden Caulfield IS a whiny little dickhead and I hate him.

Posted by: Siege at November 11, 2008 10:51 AM

Give me a minute, alright Dusty? Some people have to go to class. I was about to drop a train of Salinger defense on his punk-ass Ass but now you HAD to go an mention Star Wars, you're on your own, buddy.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at November 11, 2008 11:06 AM

Come on! No defenders of Salinger. Not one? Nobody even wants to thank him for inspiring half of the last 30 years of decent pop literature? Or Nick Hornby? Or the entire genre of dick lit?

Nobody? Man alive. I write for the wrong site.

Star Wars sucks.

Posted by: Dustin at November 11, 2008 10:08 AM

I'll be happy to address your points in order:

Salinger is defensible, if not particularly likable (as either an author or a human). His influence is undeniable, and his reputation is largely merited. How's that for slack(er) praise?

It's your site, DR. If you don't like the crowd you've attracted...hey, wait a minute! What kind of butthole are you?

I like Star Wars as much as I like the works of Salinger, and in much the same way. Star Wars impressed me much more as a whelp than it does today...

Posted by: Che Grovera at November 11, 2008 11:14 AM

Rowles' obsession with Salinger OBVIOUSLY is a sign of deeper more disturbing pathologies. I wouldn't be surprised if he had an extensive gun collection and fantasized about impressing Natalie Portman by offing someone important.

I wouldn't surprise me one bit if he also kept a secret room filled with weird, unnatural, erotica.

Ah? You like animals Rowles?... Do they like you?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 11, 2008 11:44 AM

How did this become a Star Wars thread?

Anyway, Star Wars is rife with hammy acting, clunky dialogue, enormous plot holes and bad 70's hair. And I LOVE IT. I love it all. It's so earnest! Revel in Carrie Fisher's muddled, disappearing-reappearing British accent! Marvel at Mark Hamill's wooden, pre-Keanu performance!

Posted by: Amelia Bedelia at November 11, 2008 11:44 AM

*Cues Up Imperial March*

Posted by: Phil at November 11, 2008 11:53 AM

"Or the entire genre of dick lit?..."

I like Salinger, but didn't Joyce sort of inspire dick lit first? With Portrait of an Artist?

Posted by: Lindsay at November 11, 2008 11:59 AM

*thanks Phil*


....And like I was saying, the ability to run this little pinko sleazehole on the web is NOTHING when compared to the power of the Force.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 11, 2008 11:59 AM

[small voice] I like Catcher in the Rye [/small voice].

Of course, I've been a cynic for a long time and I think that almost everyone is a self-absorbed whiny beyotch like Holden, so...

I also love Star Wars. Mostly nostalgically. Is it wrong to like both?

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at November 11, 2008 12:00 PM

And we're back to the "Star Wars is admirable junk"!

I mean.....FUCK!

Posted by: Jay at November 11, 2008 12:03 PM

You either DO HTML tags or you DON'T, Beaverplatz.

There is no try.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 11, 2008 12:03 PM

No, it's wonderful to like both, AVB. We all do. Maybe I am a whiny bitch too if I though Holden was a realistic character... Maybe I sympathize with him a lil'. I'm really not a huge fan though

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at November 11, 2008 12:03 PM

No, it's wonderful to like both, AVB. We all do. Maybe I am a whiny bitch too if I though Holden was a realistic character... Maybe I sympathize with him a lil'. I'm really not a huge fan though

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at November 11, 2008 12:03 PM

I get Caulfield's contempt for phonies, and I get that he felt out-of-place and alone. But I couldn't help but think that he was just as phony as those he criticized, and repulsively self-centered. Adolescent angst is nearly universal and utterly relatable, but Caulfield's juvenille posturing made me hate him.

As for the Glasses, they were even worse. I greatly admire intellectual prowess and ability, but only when accompanied by a sense of humanity and humility. Intelligence, in my opininon, is wasted on people like the Glasses, who use it not only to torment themselves internally, but also to create a sense of superiority over and isolation from the rest of the world. Makes me want to vom.

Posted by: tt_marie at November 11, 2008 12:04 PM

This is a beautiful, hilarious book. Siege - the bathroom scene always makes me laugh out loud. Salinger has a talent for showing the humanity and beauty in flawed characters. It's confusing to me that some people's reasons for not liking this book or other Salinger books is that they dislike the characters and I'm dumbfounded by the apparent hatred of his book! Now, the Unbearable Lightness of Being, THERE is a detestable book.

Posted by: confused at November 11, 2008 12:12 PM

To clarify: I didn't hate the book, nor do I hate Salinger, but I really, REALLY hate his characters.

Also, nothing written by Salinger will ever make my list of favorite books. I require something more from literature than Salinger's able to provide - something to take away, to admire, to love. I've never found that in his work. I've been entertained and interested, but never inspired.

Posted by: tt_marie at November 11, 2008 12:20 PM


I loved this book in high school. Not sure how it would hold up now. And, as fucked up as the Glass family was, I so wanted to be a member of it, since it seemed so much better than my own redneck-southern-gothic-type of fucked up family.

Posted by: Drake at November 11, 2008 12:28 PM

My english degree is weeping as I type this, but I have never read Salinger. He's on my list though!! I just have to finish On the Road first.

Posted by: Julie at November 11, 2008 1:07 PM

I hated Catcher in the Rye- and was so glad I read it. I could feel that extra cubic centimeter of my brain that opened up after petulantly shuffling through it, and that's as good a reason as any to look forward to hating Franny and Zooey.

Well, that and the Royal Tenenbaums comparison.

RIP, Buckley.

Posted by: Beatific Barf at November 11, 2008 2:15 PM

From Kerouac to Salinger -- that's a rather masochistic road you're on, Julie. Oh well. I still prefer Conrad* for prolonged expeditions into the mindscape...so literary masochism and I aren't exactly strangers.

* Not Skitz's cousin (that note feels obligatory on this site)

Posted by: Che Grovera at November 11, 2008 3:38 PM

Dustin, you have a friend in me. I think Salinger is a brilliant, brilliant writer who has a gift for dialogue and gets that 1950s-white-upper-middle-class-Westchester/NYC/Fairfield County-thing just so. I also find his stories and characters absolutely hysterical. In "A Perfect Day for Bananafish" when a woman in the elevator denies looking at Seymour's feet and he says "If you want to look at my feet, say so, but don't be a God-damned sneak about it"?
I mean, come on! Perfection. For whatever reason, he gets an insanely bad rap, probably b/c "The Catcher in the Rye" has the temerity to be a book that has stood the test of time. I don't get it. As to likable characters, is there a more loathsome character than Ignatius Reilly...and a better one?

My idea of a perfect afternoon is to sit and read Salinger's short stories on the beach along with some Richard Yates and John Cheever. Ah, heaven.

Posted by: samantha t at November 11, 2008 3:43 PM

Salinger is important, I think, not just for his ability to construct a perfect sentence or turn of phrase. I think the man has created a universe wherein the characters represent profound truths about human existence - most often concerning morality and what it means to "do good." This is not just notable literature - this is a serious and difficult and heartbreaking - albeit imperfect - philosophy of the good and the sublime, and how these interact with everything else in the world (if there is anything else). Salinger both seeks and demands perfection in his works, and this I think is an important part of what makes him a rightful object of respect, admiration, and frustration.

Posted by: WW at November 11, 2008 3:43 PM

Like most literary criticism, it helps to look at the Glass family canon as a whole. As Misku pointed out, look at Nine Stories.
But since this is just an entertainment blog, I guess you have every right to bash Salinger out of context. However, I think it is very important for Salinger to be taught, and intend to teach his works.

Hugs and Kisses,
English Degree who votes

Posted by: VeinsRHiways at November 11, 2008 4:01 PM

However, I think it is very important for Salinger to be taught, and intend to teach his works.

Posted by: VeinsRHiways at November 11, 2008 4:01 PM

No argument from this quarter, VRH. Besides, who said education had to be enjoyable?

Posted by: Che Grovera at November 11, 2008 5:11 PM

A lot of people, more and more I would assume as we progress towards actually giving a rat's ass about our education system.

Posted by: VeinsRHiways at November 11, 2008 6:09 PM

Assholes.

Posted by: Jackseppelin at November 12, 2008 2:48 AM

Franny & Zooey is a great book. To answer an earlier question, Anderson has quoted Salinger as a huge influence on his stories, and you can see it in a lot of current filmmakers' works. The inability to make Catcher is probably why we have Rushmore and Igby Goes Down. I think it all depends on how you read Zooey's voice. If you hear it in a dry, snarky way like "These are O.R. scrubs", you love it. And there are moments of beauty in all the books that I don't think anything surpasses, particularly Nine Stories.

I think what I like about the Glasses is they have more closure for me than Caulfield, where I kept waiting for something redeemable about the character and then I kind of liked him in the flashback on the porch and then the book stops. I read Bananafish from 9 Stories last, so his suicide was talked about over and over again, and then I read it, and I felt like I'd read a full-sized novel by Salinger, which I never thought I'd do.

I bet all these Salinger-haters are so far up Hunter S. Thompson's ass they can hear Sympathy for the Devil playing right now.

Posted by: puppetdoug at November 12, 2008 3:04 AM

Boy, you Salinger-lovers are a feisty lot. But all y'all are starting to sound like a bunch of anti-abortion activists -- if you aren't "pro-life" then you must be "anti-life". Yeah, right.

Dustin started it after only three comments had been posted, and one of those three was neutral at worst. Wednesday and I both made what I regard as legitimate experiential observations about why Salinger didn't appeal to us as a writer. That doesn't make us "haters" -- it just makes us people who did read his work and didn't take the same things away that others of you did.

I still like my pop music analogy, so I'm going to crawl farther out on the limb and expand upon it. I'd liken Salinger to Lou Reed; someone rather dark and edgy whose own appeal is limited to a certain demographic but who had enormous influence on those who succeeded him. That assessment may not be entirely consistent with my initial comment, but so be it. And so what if I'd rather listen to some of Lou Reed's successors than to the man himself? I'm familiar with both and I can simultaneously acknowledge the historical significance of one while articulating my reasons for preferring the other, so excuse me for choosing to be up an ass other than the one that you're occupying, puppetdoug.

A lot of Pajiba book reviews fail to break out of single digits in comments, so it's at least nice to see some fire in the literary belly here. Now I'm going to get another cup of coffee that I clearly don't need.

Posted by: Che Grovera at November 12, 2008 9:23 AM

I love both Hunter and Jerome. I have no idea what excludes one from the other.

You're an asshole for disliking or "not falling into that certain demographic *dry heaves*" that loves either Thompson or Jerome.

Posted by: Jackseppelin at November 12, 2008 4:04 PM

Of course one of my reviews goes up when I'm basically exiled from computers. This is belatedly exciting, though!

And I know you'll never see this, but VeinsRHiways-seriously? I wasn't bashing Salinger. I said pretentious characters were pretentious and a long-winded character was long-winded, and that I would hate Zooey in real life. And I finished by saying I respected the book and loved some of his lines.

Sheesh, who knew that by admitting I didn't vote I'd earn an enemy for life weeks?

Posted by: Sabrina at November 18, 2008 2:53 PM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.