Quote:
It's not the happy ones. Of all of Tolkien's tales, I would personally say that the one that would be the most satisfying to finish would have been the Narn i Chín Húrin. The Lay of Leithian simply doesn't compare, in terms of satisfaction of completion. Why? Well, this is all complete opinion as to why I would enjoy writing Túrin's tale most-- it's the saddest, most evil. Maybe we never see Morgoth or Sauron up close, but to say that we don't see much of them is simply nonsense. The entire tragedy of the House of Húrin is Morgoth's work. The dialogue of Morgoth and Húrin, and the dialogues later of Glaurung and Túrin are dialogues that I think would have been absolutely delicious to write. And yes, the good, noble characters would have been pleasing to write in all their tragic-heroic glory... but the really fun lines to have penned would have been Morgoth's, would have been Glaurung's. It has already been brought up how Tolkien liked dragons... and I don't think anyone would say that Tolkien's dragons are nice characters. They are purely evil. But fascinating. Deadly fascinating. Are ANY characters really so seductive as Smaug or Glaurung? We know they are evil--Tolkien makes that quite clear--and we are glad when Túrin or Bard kills them... but they are compelling, fascinating characters. Quote:
Not at all. To be honest... I find the idea that one should berate readers for enjoying the evilness of the evil characters to be a little ridiculous. I was attempting to raise, with a deliberate pointness, the question that if one is going to censure the reader then one ought to censure the author. After all, in condemning those who view pornography, do we not normally reserve even greater condemnation for those who provide the pornography? Of course... who around here wants to make the claim that Tolkien had some severe psychological problems and was morally in the wrong to have relished (as I think he must have) writing those scenes of evil in ascendance. And it doesn't even matter if he actually did relish writing them or not-- the logical principle remains the same. If we can conceive of Tolkien enjoying it, and still think him a moral person, then I think a reader enjoying reading the same cannot either be censured. |
I think Form raises an important point - one may enjoy, relish even, a good villain. One does not have to agree with, let alone support what they do, but one may enjoy it. The villains often get the best lines, perform the most entertaining acts & in a way most significant, get the most spectacular endings.
So, one may side with the 'villains' & not see then as 'wrong' in any way. Or one may see them as wrong but enjoy what they get up to - Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham was the only good thing about Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves in many people's opinion. Darth Vader was the dark heart of the Star Wars movies & let's face it Han Solo was vastly more attractive than that 'goody-goody' Luke - because Han was a bit dangerous, & much more of a 'rebel' than most of the 'worthies' in the Rebel Alliance. Ask any actor whether they would rather play a villain or a hero & they would choose the villain. Or in a more literary vein - who is the most charismatic figure, the tragic 'hero' of Paradise Lost - Satan. Which leads us on to the question of why writers like to write such attractive, charismatic villains & why readers like to read about them & enjoy being around them? My theory? Not because in most cases they feel a psychological, let alone a spiritual, affinity with them - but more often than not because they don't. The villain is so 'different' to the reader/viewer that they are attractive for that very reason - opposites attract. And, yet, as I've been arguing, some readers may actually like the villain, & feel fine about what he's up to. But again, that tells us nothing about the reader's psychological state. It may simply be that they find the 'good' side so bland & uninteresting that they side with anyone who is out to give them a good kicking. Which is why, again one cannot judge a reader's relationship with the primary world by the choices he or she makes regarding the secondary world - the 'good' guys in the secondary world may bore them silly. |
Heh. In actual fact it's not only pretty tedious but very difficult to write a character who is 100% perfect - they invariably come out like our ol' friend Mary Sue. :eek: All good characters have at least one flaw, a fatal flaw preferably, and a combination of a few flaws is usually good as they not only struggle with the obstacles of a plot but struggle with these in individual ways and at the same time, struggle with their flaws. Without flaws, characters cannot grow - how could you grow if you were already perfect?
|
Of course, Turin is a pretty good example of a flawed character. Someone so driven by pride (ofermod if you will - at least Tolkien's conception of ofermod), who kills innocent people - including his best friend, marries & impregnates his sister & probably provokes a massacre of his own people - taken at face value we would have to class him among the 'bad guys' - yet Tolkien makes him a tragic figure with whom the reader sympathises. Turin is classed among the good guys, but Gollum, an equally tragic victim of circumstances, tends to be classed among the 'bad guys'.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Davem, you have yet to address my point that fantasy and imagination are part of one's universe of ideas, where any intention is subject to moral evaluation, regardless of whether it becomes enacted or not. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
In any event, you seem to be taking "seductive" a bit too literally. It is not my intent to suggest that Smaug or Glaurung has a greater sexual appeal to the reader (or other characters) than Lúthien. Seduction is not, of course, a term limited in its usage purely to sexual matters. By seductive here, I was meaning the ability to draw the reader in, to fascinate the reader, to make the reader like the character despite his/her "real life" dislike for anything the character would actually be in the real world. Though I am sure that face-to-face, Lúthien would (by simple reason of being human in appearance, gorgeous, possessed of a positive personality, and there being a strong case for her being persuasive) be much more seductive than either dragon, as a CHARACTER to a READER, the ones that seduce are more often the dragons. It might make a good Poll question, if Fordhim or someone ever wants for another topic there, to ask who readers think is more seductive, as a character to a reader: Lúthien or the dragons. My hunch? The dragons. I've heard a lot of people on this site say that Lúthien is boring... or a bore to read, anyway. I haven't heard anyone say that of Glaurung or Smaug that I am able to recall. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I will go further than that; I was talking a few years back to my teacher of peace studies, and he mentioned that there exists yin and yang in every situation, so I asked him about yang in SS soldiers. He mentioned discipline and, IIRC, comradery and courage. These are points I concede. Enemies, whether real or imaginary, may display (moral) qualities which we already agree with, and recognising them in these persons is not in itself something immoral. But, as you say in this particular instance, this does not amount to agreeing with their immorality. One could look at a great master's painting depicting a battle. One may admire heroism, sacrifice, or deplore the stupidity of dying for the economical or dogmatic interest of others (if somehow this was the historical motive, which it usually was). However, if one was to delight in all the wounds and harm, if one was to be derriving some sadistic pleasure from this, then, if it fits my previous argument about moral values, it would be cultivating immorality. Regarding enjoying imaginary humorous situations, I don't see any moral contradiction in that, as long as the person in question, if it has the moral values I mentioned, delights only in the genuine hilarity and derrives zero pleasures from infliction of harm. Also, I don't believe such a person would put oneself in moral contradiction with oneself if he somehow involuntarily laughed at a particulary hilarious (in itself) element in a real life dramatic event, as long as there was no siding with any values he himself considers immoral. Many persons view cartoons as particulary violent and don't watch Tom and Jerry for that reason, despite what might amount to some exoneration of humour in both real and imaginary situations. I know many persons, westerners included, who share these feelings. The "whole/package deal" is not worth it for some. |
Quote:
To attempt an answer I would say that fantasy & imagination are part of one's universe of ideas but that the ability to distinguish between fantasy (torturing an elf or Donald Duck) & reality (torturing your next door neighbour) is the first requirement of a sane human being. Quote:
And I do not think there is any evidence that he considered Melkor to be the manifestation of Satan - he may have used he names Sauron/Satan interchangeably but I think he could distinguish between the two - & if he couldn't then he was a bit weird & should have known better. The point you're missing is that he chose to write about a world of dragons, Balrogs & Orcs. Now, by quoting: Quote:
Now, back to Dragons: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think the problem here is that you are viewing (& expecting the rest of of us to do the same) the Legendarium as a work of moral didacticism, if not of Christian theology. It is not. It is a work of Art. It is as it is & not something else. It is not a parable, or a re-write of the Bible. EDIT Re Turin & Gollum. Turin is hardly just a victim of circumstances - he brings disaster on himself by his attempts to avoid Morgoth's curse. His fate is determined for the most part by his own decisions. This is why his fate is tragic. Gollum is hardly that different. As to the way you are approaching Tolkien's work - you seem to feel that because a character is said to be 'good' that the reader must agree that that character is good because if he/she doesn't then the reader is 'bad'. Readers have different tastes. Many readers distinguish between fact & fantasy, & wouldn't have a problem with Tom having a piano dropped on his head or Kenny being riddled with bullets & eaten by rats, because they aren't real people. They wouldn't think that the writer who has Kenny being killed in that way is no different from some sick individual who fantasised about doing the same thing to a real child. One may find Orcs or dragons more interesting & entertaining than Elves. Some readers think Lizzie Bennett one of the most interesting, witty & insightful characters in English literature - others may find her annoying, trivial & self obsessed & wish that someone had dropped a piano on her head. Neither reader is good or bad, moral or immoral. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this moral person we are talking about can have two imaginary proccesses, one which deals with the actual neighbour, the other with an imaginary identical neighbour - and the only thing that makes the first imaginary process immoral and the second not so, is that the second imaginary process is, well, more imaginary. It seems to me that you fail to acknowledge - in this argument - that the "real" neighbour doesn't exist in one's mind as such, but it is only an imaginary construct. All the world is re-created in our mind - we imagine it. Frankly, l find this to be common sense in the modern world. If two imaginary processes are identical, in every aspect, then if one implies immorality, so does the second. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
What's that coming over the hill?
Quote:
It's monsters. They are bigger and badder than us. They are scary yet beautiful. If you wanted to write a fantasy with all the elements in place you'd have to get a Dragon in there. I'm enjoying ITV's shockingly good (shocking because ITV are usually crud) Saturday 'monster drama' Primeval which features all kinds of awesome monsters, and waiting for the next series of Doctor Who with the Daleks, Cybermen, etc, and another series of Torchwood with it's Weevils and evil faeries. Plus hopefully another series of Robin Hood with it's deliciously evil bad guys. TV makers have cottoned on to the fact that we like things like this, because they're just so much more exciting than the 'reality' stuff that's churned out! I don't care if some kid from Doncaster can sing well or not, I want Monsters and baddies! |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The problem is you are attempting top make moral judgements about a reader based on what the characters mean/represent to you, when the reader may feel nothing of the sort about them. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, the reader is free to decide that torturing an elf is a fine thing, something to be encouraged, & that medals should be handed out for doing so. I won't condemn them for it, or think any less of them. In short, I don't think the reader's response to the characters in a book says anything about their morality. I'm not going to judge someone on their response to a book. I don't believe anything of any value can be learned about a person from their response to fictional characters. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What this comes down to is a simple question - are you prepared to judge a person's character based on whether they choose Morgoth over Eru, or think A Nazgul is cooler than an Elf? If a reader chooses to approach Tolkien's work as being no more 'serious' or 'deep' than South Park then, however 'moral' they are they may side with Morgoth, Eru or the Fox in the Shire & it will have absolutely no relevance at all in terms of understanding the reader's moral value system. Again, you are taking your own approach to the work as being the 'norm'. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Picking up on some responses from way back ...
Quote:
Just because a moral person may have a certain impulse, it does not make that impulse morally acceptable. Nor does having the immoral impulse make them an immoral person, particularly if they would never dream of acting on it. Quote:
That said, I cannot, as I have said previously, agree that a reader’s response to a work of fiction cannot necessarily tell us anything about that reader. It depends what the work of fiction is. Your examples of Tom & Jerry and South Park are false analogies. One has to look at the context of the fictional world in which the events portrayed take place. Where violence takes place in a cartoon context, where it is understood by the viewer that its purpose is humour, that it is not intended to raise moral issues, and that no “real harm” ever comes to the protagonists, then I see no problem in that. But where evil, torture and suffering are portrayed in a world with a similar moral code to that of our own society and are portrayed as causing real harm in that fictional world, and where morality is necessarily implicated by the creation and portrayal of good beings and evil beings, then it seems to me that it does say something about the reader’s morality if they genuinely side with those who are portrayed as evil and who are responsible for the torture, murder and suffering, and regard those things as worthy (as opposed to simply finding them interesting, playing at sympathising with them, or admiring certain (admirable) qualities in them). I note that you did not address my examples of 1984 and Silence of the Lambs. Would you draw no conclusions about a reader if they were genuinely to sympathise with the stated aims and actions of Big Brother and thought Winston Smith had it coming to him, or if they were genuinely to regard Hannibal Lecter’s cannibalism as acceptable? If not, then we have no common ground here, because I most certainly would. |
Quote:
In short, the reader may not take the work seriously. One is not obliged to. One of Lal's favourite movies is The Wicker Man (the original). She takes it absolutely seriously & finds the ending horrific. I found it comical & thought the ending hilarious. Christopher Lee singing 'Summer is icummen in' & prancing around in a dress while Edward Woodward goes up in flames was the most surreal & hilarious thing I can remember. I found 1984 so over the top - as did Aldous Huxley btw - & Silence of the Lambs so ridiculously far up its own fundament that I couldn't take either of them seriously, & to be honest, if 1984 had ended with Big Brother dancing around in a dress singing 'Summer is icummen in' while Winston was scoffed by rats it would not have seemed out of place. And if Hannibal had eaten the annoying Clarice's liver with some fava beans & a nice chianti I wouldn't have blamed him. A reader will respond to a text as they wish. For some readers The Sil is as far fetched as South Park & a lot less entertaining. I respect their right to feel that way about it, even though I do not share their view, & don't therefore think I can draw any conclusions about their morality as far as events in the real world are concerned. |
But we are not talking here about people who find Tolkien's works silly or ridiculous. We are, as far as I am concerned anyway, talking about people who treat it seriously, yet genuinely support the evil characters.
I would agree that, if they find it silly, they are not really genuinely siding with evil, and so few, if any, conclusions could be drawn with regard to their morality. |
Quote:
I cannot declare someone who thinks Orcs slaughtering Elves is cool (however 'seriously' they might take the slaughter) to be 'immoral' in the same way (or at all if it comes to that) that I would instantly declare someone who thought Serbs slaughtering Bosnians was cool. And I don't accept that the same thought processes are behind the former as behind the latter. |
Quote:
I like it because it's pure gothic horror, suspense building throughout, surreal moments, black humour...I find that kind of thing genuinely frightening, but the most frightening thing I have ever seen and ever will see was Threads. As for traditional horror films, those with suspense like Halloween are scary, those which just have gore are pure comedy. I laughed all the way through The Evil Dead, the same with The Exorcist and The Omen - both were just stupid. What makes The Wicker Man frightening is that you can imagine a small community going collectively insane - in fact cults do go insane in this kind of way, and what makes Threads frightening is we're only ever one step away from nuclear holocaust happening. However children do not get possessed by the devil, there's no such thing as an antichrist and the only evil thing that shacks in the woods are likely to contain are loads of woodlice and spiders. Quote:
|
Quote:
Lal, as I made clear earlier, I accept that there are grey areas in the field of morality and ethics. Even with regard to torture, which some people might regard as justifiable to gain information in order to avert an atrocity (an argument which I consider fails logically, as torture is generally one of the less effective means of gaining reliable information). I can only speak from my own moral stance, but I believe that there is a large part of it which is shared by the society which I live in generally. As regards the relationship between law and morality, there are very many areas of conduct which I would regard as immoral or unethical, even though not wrong in the legal sense. Similarly, there are laws enacted in some places of the world (even in the UK) which I find contrary to my own sense of ethics and morality. This is an area with which I am rather familiar, being the person responsible for the code of business conduct in the company for which I work, and for training people on both legal and ethical behaviour. In any event, I would regard a momentary lapse in morality, such as in the circumstances we were discussing, as very different from taking a genuine delight in, and sympathising with, the torture and murder of innocents, even in a fictional fantasy setting. Neither, of course, are illegal. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In the second quote, you seem to contradict yourself by saying that the "norm" - that is, the majority view - is a standard notion in ethics, and that a majority view is an ethical one. Obviously you can't hold both these contradictory views at once, so you must choose one. If you choose the latter, then morality is defined by culture. If you choose the former, then it is pointless to discuss the issue of morality with you, because you'll be certain that your morality is the only right one. Quote:
The argument between davem and raynor seems rather cyclical. So, if I may, I'll bring in amorality again. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
If X is regarded as immoral within the moral norms of a particular society or group, is it immoral within that society/group genuinely to delight in, sympathise with and support the fictional representation of the perpetration of X? I would say that it depends upon the fictional context, but would disagree that it is necessarily not immoral to do so. In other words, depending upon the fictional contest, I would say that it can be immoral to do so. Edit: To contextualise it in terms of Tolkien's works, I would say that it is immoral within the society/group in question genuinely to delight in, sympathise with and support the perpetration of X within Tolkien's works. |
Quote:
And to move on. Let's say someone who fully supports the evil side in LotR is 'immoral'. What should we do about them? Should they be watched? Should they be allowed to adopt children? Can they be trusted not to steal cars, rob houses or mug grannies? But can we judge their 'morality' only through the way they respond to fictional characters - is that sufficient evidence on which to base our judgement? And which fictional works are we to use in order to make our judgement? Who decides? And is it to be a question only of judging the reader's morality? I'm sure Germaine Greer for example would decide that anyone who liked Tolkien (whether they were rooting for the Good guys or the Bad guys) was emotionally & intellectually immature for instance. You see, this whole issue of judging an individual's moral, ethical or intellectual state based on their choice of who to cheer on in a work of fiction puts those who use that criterion in a difficult position in regards to other people - if you truly believe someone who cheers on the Orcs is 'immoral' then what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do with them? Either you believe that although they are immoral people they are harmless (in which case the whole issue has nothing more than curiosity value - & morality is trivial issue as far as you are concerned because it has no effect on people's behaviour or the way they treat others) or you believe that their immorality makes them at least a potential threat to others, & you therefore have an obligation to restrict what they can do for the greater good.... Based on whether they think Orcs are cooler than Elves. On whether they enjoy the thought of (non-existent) Elves being dragged into a (non-existent) Angband by (non-existent) Orcs to be tortured by a (non-existent) Morgoth & his (non-existent) Balrogs . Or even on whether they get off on the idea of a (non-existent) dragon razing a (non-existent) town built in stilts in a (non-existent) lake. |
Hmmm.....
I've lived long enough to feel fairly confident about the following things. a) lots of young people find bad and naughty things glamorous and exciting. This is, inter alia, why rumours of devilish messages played backwards at the end of certain heavy metal records do nothing but increase interest in said records. And why bands like Iron Maiden call their albums things like "Number of the Beast". b) mostly this fascination with the bad and naughty is harmless, and most people eventually get bored with it. In real life, evil tends to be mundane, nasty, stupid and unpleasant - the hyperintelligent villain a la Lecter is a total fiction. I don't think Tolkien is a particularly good example of evil fascinatiion, because his villains are mostly quite un-glamorous, lacking a hinterland....they don't have a patch on Milton's Satan, for example...with the possible exception of Saruman, and Sauron-as-Annatar. The personification of Sauron in the films was a bit more metal, however, and that may be what's got people excited. c) on the other hand, moral relativism sucks. I am probably considered to be on the liberal end of things, but there are certain things that I strongly believe are wrong, and I don't give a monkeys if these things were/are considered ok in ancient Babylon or Easter Island or whatever. They're still wrong. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I wonder if the thugs of the Shire are as attractive as orcs for some readers? I mean, are some baddies more interesting than others? Note meaning to imply that loyers are baddies, of course. :D |
Course, the more I read that morality is based upon what society you live in and what age you live in, the more it sounds like morality is indeed relative! That's on both a global and a temporal basis. But even within one nation 'morality' can be very different. To me, it's instinctively abhorrent that a woman should feel she ought to go around with her face covered, but to the woman living just a few houses away, it's the correct moral thing to do. And that's where the bind lies.
I do my best not to judge (though I acknowledge that it is pretty much inevitable that I will judge people - as a human I am constantly comparing people to find out "Are they like me? Are they not?" - something which stems from our basic survival instinct). In a society, especially a modern society, a multi-cultural society, sometimes it's the only way that you can get along with your neighbours and colleagues, to accept that you will never agree, and that their morality is very different to your own. That's why morality is relative in the modern world. If we all conform to one 'norm' then everyone in a multi-cultural society must behave in the same way, including women all either wearing or not wearing the hijab; the fact that women do not tells us morality is not at all 'fixed' but that it fluctuates. And that's why I say it is extremely rude to place the highly emotive and loaded term 'immoral' on someone for who they like and do not like in a piece of fiction. We have no knowledge whatsoever of that person, their background (cultural, religious, political, economic, temporal, geographical etc), their intentions, their other likes/dislikes (if they generally like evil characters or good ones, and if this is just one instance of liking a bad guy or one in a long sequence) - so we cannot simply say He or She is immoral based on whether they like an Orc or an Elf. That is what is commonly known as Judging A Book By It's Cover. Something we should all avoid. Me too. I tend to react when I see a chav (holding on to my handbag and wondering where the car is etc), but I find that if I actually speak to said chav, he's usually perfectly ordinary and up to no harm at all (and often quite pleased to be finally spoken to like a human being!). Basing your moral judgement of someone based on something as purely surface as which characters they like or do not like without knowing much, much more about that person is at the root of prejudice. "You do not like the same thing as I do, therefore I do not think you are as moral as I am" is not far from "You do not follow the same faith/politics/football team as I do, therefore you are not as good as I am". We all do it, we should perhaps try to avoid doing it and confront our prejudices - it's a lifelong struggle, constantly challenged when someone of the opposite view confronts us, but one we have to deal with or we may as well drop the civilised front and all pick up our bone axes and go for it. |
Quote:
The reason this is a 'problem' is that all three of the above alternatives mean that the person is actually 'immoral'. 1) means we are dealing with an immoral person. 2)If a moral person chooses to behave immorally, or support an immoral action he or she cannot be considered 'moral' - why would a moral person choose to support an immoral action? Indeed, how could a moral person be considered 'moral' by anyone if they choose to support an immoral act? Hence, a 'moral' person who chooses to support an immoral act is a logical impossibility. Thus, option 2) means we are dealing with an immoral person. 3) If an 'amoral' person chooses to support an immoral act they cannot actually be considered 'amoral' because they are making a conscious choice not to be either moral or amoral. So, option 3) again means we are dealing with an immoral person. Which leaves us with an immoral person (said immorality being a temporary or permanent state). And it further leaves us with your statement that the immoral choice (freely made) does not make the person dangerous. But what does it make them - & if it doesn't make them dangerous in any way then for all practical purposes it is irrelevant - other than to give us someone to look down on as being 'less moral' than we are - but that is pretty much worthless if moral or immoral choices make no difference in real terms. What effect in real terms does making immoral choices have in your view? Aren't you in effect simply saying 'its not a nice way to think but it makes no practical difference to you or anyone else'? Or when you say 'it does not necessarily make them dangerous' are you adding the unspoken corrollory 'but it may do'? In which case what do you do? You know that someone who consciously supports an immoral act may be dangerous but you do nothing about it? My position is that supporting the 'bad guys' in a work of fiction is an aesthetic/emotional choice which may be made for many reasons - not a 'moral' choice. It is a matter of personal taste not ethics & personal taste is not something which can be held up for moral judgement. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
SpM - In saying that morality depends on social context, you are supporting moral relativism. However, you seem to be saying that this does not make that society's morality any less valid as a system and, furthermore, that a society's system of morality should be used to judge the individuals within it. What about dissenters? Mixed-race marriages, gay marriages and supporting women's right have all been regarded as immoral in history (simply staying within British history). I presume you have no objection to these things now. How can you support temporal, societal-based morality to judge people today, but be against using it historically? I'm sleepy (shamefully early, I know!) and am aware that I'm a bit rambly, but I hope that was clear enough to be understood. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.