Jump to content
Tyrion1991

I hate the Starks, should I keep reading?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

They don’t have proto enlightenment practices. That’s the idea of putting reason and science above emotion and religion. The Starks are motivated by feudal concepts of honour that run counter to this and they are religious.

The Starks are the government. It’s on them if their country is poor and it’s people starving. 

Household servants are basically family. It’s not the same as inferring that Ned is a man of the people. For all you know he probably took hands off poachers. He is a feudal overlord whose family are running a protection racket. It’s no different than the mafia.

The Unsullied and slaves chose Daenerys. That’s a much broader electorate than twenty elector counts of the North. Why should I be impressed by a system which doomed Germany and Poland? You may have noticed that England has a hereditary monarch but still developed a constitutional monarchy with a parliament. It’s the power of the landed aristocracy and the over mighty subjects that needs to go. The Starks are the problem, not the solution. These are men who would have sided with King Charles 1st in the English Civil War.

They aren’t the underdogs. They’re the largest land holders in the realm and feudal overlords who send thousands of “their beloved people” to die as chaff in a personal feud. They then style themselves as royalty and begin a campaign of conquest in the South to annex the Riverlands. These are not the actions of heroes. If the Lannister’s were not caricatures of evil, the Starks actions are infinitely more questionable.

 

 

Did the slaves really have a choice? They were extremely vulnerable, they are used to being used for something. At that point, when they "chose" Daenerys they didn't really have the notion of freedom, all they knew it was someone came, killed all the masters, and told them to "choose". What was the alternative? Starve? Well they actually start starving after Daenerys. The liberation of the slaves later bites her in the ass. 

As for the North, they are poor because they lack resources and they are not that poorer. They have an extreme weather which make difficult for agriculture but still they endure.

If they were that unsatisfied with their liege lord they would've deposed the Stark long ago and they didn't(apart from the Boltons because they had an opportunity), the other houses in the North are extremely loyal. 

I detest Daenerys, I think she is awful and self absorbed but I kept on going, maybe in the next book I will change my mind about her(very unlikely), I don't like Arya and Tyrion but again I kept on going. It's your choice in the end. 

Edited by keira_targaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

They then style themselves as royalty and begin a campaign of conquest in the South to annex the Riverlands. These are not the actions of heroes. If the Lannister’s were not caricatures of evil, the Starks actions are infinitely more questionable.

Now it's obvious you are trolling. Robb's northern bannerman chose him as their king, and the river lords chose him as their king, and he lost the north while liberating the Riverlands from the Lannisters. He showed no interest in ruling the south outside of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life’s too short, and there are too many good books out there to waste our time on those we don’t like. The Starks are the protagonists. I know I’d have a hard time reading if I hated them all. Hell. I’ve been stuck in the middle of a Catelyn chapter for more than a day now. I can’t stand her. If I felt the same way about the rest of the Starks, I’d be nowhere. Why suffer through it? If you’re asking us, it seems obvious to me that you want to stop, so just do it. You don’t need our permission. If the pain outweighs the reward, quit reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

So I didn’t come into the series because of these characters. I came in because of Daenerys and the Game of Thrones plot line; which only very partially involves the Starks. 

I honestly only really liked early Sansa (I think it’s increasingly obvious the character is heading down a grim dark path) and the rest were either boring like Arya/Bran or actively offended me like Jon. 

Should I keep reading? 

I know that the final book was meant to be called a Time for Wolves and the theory that Jon might be Rhaegars son. These things suggest that the series is built upon Stark fan service which would involve pushing aside other characters which I am more invested in.

For example, I actually don’t like the King in the North and Northern Independence thing. It feels forced, rammed down my throat and nationalism is kind of evil. The expectation that I should be rooting for this is disconcerting. Why are they more important than peasants in the Westerlands? Why is their society and culture set on a pedestal? I am not impressed.

So far I can keep reading because there’s enough characters, plot lines and all the Starks are weak with no real power. I am essentially ignoring their existence. Once that changes though and they all become major players I think it will be very difficult for me to carry on with the series. Frankly I skipped most of Jon, Arya and Brans chapters, skim reading them at best. I truly don’t care about them at all. In the case of Jon, even the authors best efforts to paint him in a positive light only increase my disdain and contempt for him.

 

Welllpp, it sounds like you have answered your own questions. You are asking for a book series that Martin specifically did not write; being solely focused on one side, one character arc in particular while ignoring the rest. You (highly) dislike half of the books, and in doing so, you are rigorously avoiding the story.

Should you keep reading? No. There are plenty of other fantasy books out there to not skip 50% of the material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Now it's obvious you are trolling. Robb's northern bannerman chose him as their king, and the river lords chose him as their king, and he lost the north while liberating the Riverlands from the Lannisters. He showed no interest in ruling the south outside of that.

 

This is different than the Roman Legions declaring their generals Emperor how exactly? His Bannermen are his soldiers. The riverlords are gangsters as clearly shown by Lord Frey.  He pays them in money and land. They are not representatives of the people. They are gangsters who want their slice of protection money. You can sugarcoat it with as much chivalry as you want but there’s nothing separating these people from gangsters. They don’t have any legitimate authority by law, god or the nation. They’re simply the local strongmen.

You mean the Lannister invasion they caused by illegally kidnapping Tyrion on false charges and usurping the Kings power in his absence to threaten Tywin Lannister? The Riverlands War is entirely the Starks fault. All those deaths are on their hands.

He invaded the Westerlands. He probably would have attacked beyond that if he had a stronger army. You’re confusing weakness with virtue. The Starks don’t do the bad things the Lannister’s and Targaryens do because they’re weak and don’t have the power (yet) to change their lot. Once they do, I don’t think there will be much difference.

He lost the North because he wanted to absorb the Riverlands into his realm rather than fight a defensive war behind the neck the Lannister’s could never have won. Rob wanted glory, vengeance and power. He didn’t want to play the long game and force a compromise. You’re confusing his failings for genuine concern for the Riverlands. If he cared about them, he’d realise that his families war is the cause of their suffering.

Edited by Tyrion1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Welllpp, it sounds like you have answered your own questions. You are asking for a book series that Martin specifically did not write; being solely focused on one side, one character arc in particular while ignoring the rest. You (highly) dislike half of the books, and in doing so, you are rigorously avoiding the story.

Should you keep reading? No. There are plenty of other fantasy books out there to not skip 50% of the material.

 

There really isn’t though.

I read quite a lot. Ice and Fire. Wheel of Time. Stormlight. Wars of Light and Shadow. For my sins, the Horus Heresy and a bunch of other black library books. 

Firstly, there’s not that many big high fantasy doorstopper novels to choose from. Secondly, none of them have a character like Daenerys.

You can maybe squint with Elayne and maybe argue that Shallan has a lot of attention given to her. However they still feel like side characters or are taken on directions I find underwhelming on some basic unspoken level. You don’t have this epic heroes journey where the scales and scope is set that high with a female character. It simply is not the done thing. It’s what makes her arc very unique and compelling for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are looking for proto-enlightenment ideas or anything resembling modern sensibilities, then you are definitely reading the wrong series.  This takes place in a fictitious, imaginary-world version of the middle ages, so they don't exist yet.

As for the attitudes of the Starks, it is worth noting that Jorah Mormont is in exile becaue Ned stark wasgoing to take his head for selling poachers into slavery.  And Roose Bolton mentions in a later book about having to hide his activities from Ned's father for fear of punishment.  Both cases involved commoners.

I think the Starks are among the better characters, ethically speaking, in the series.  Certainly better than, say, the Lannisters.  They are not perfect, and have done some wrong acts, though usually not from venality.  More like bad judgement.

I find it interesting that you like early Sansa.  One thing practically everybody, Stark-lovers included, agree on is that early Sansa is a difficult pill to swallow.

Given your hatred for what are most of the main characters, I would suggest you not bother with the series.  You will either miss large chunks, or get increasingly frustrated reading about characters you apparently don't care about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

It’s the power of the landed aristocracy and the over mighty subjects that needs to go.

Not going to happen for the next centuries. The economic realities of Westeros simply doesn't allow for anything resembling a democracy.

9 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

The Unsullied and slaves chose Daenerys

No, they didn't. Daenerys was never elected, she just murdered those she disliked and obligated everyone to follow her orders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given what you’ve said, I d say yes, you should most definitely stop reading the main series. You can always wait for Fire & Blood II and pretend a Targaryen restoration is an actual thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2019 at 5:14 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

So I didn’t come into the series because of these characters. I came in because of Daenerys and the Game of Thrones plot line; which only very partially involves the Starks. 

I honestly only really liked early Sansa (I think it’s increasingly obvious the character is heading down a grim dark path) and the rest were either boring like Arya/Bran or actively offended me like Jon. 

Should I keep reading? 

I know that the final book was meant to be called a Time for Wolves and the theory that Jon might be Rhaegars son. These things suggest that the series is built upon Stark fan service which would involve pushing aside other characters which I am more invested in.

For example, I actually don’t like the King in the North and Northern Independence thing. It feels forced, rammed down my throat and nationalism is kind of evil. The expectation that I should be rooting for this is disconcerting. Why are they more important than peasants in the Westerlands? Why is their society and culture set on a pedestal? I am not impressed.

So far I can keep reading because there’s enough characters, plot lines and all the Starks are weak with no real power. I am essentially ignoring their existence. Once that changes though and they all become major players I think it will be very difficult for me to carry on with the series. Frankly I skipped most of Jon, Arya and Brans chapters, skim reading them at best. I truly don’t care about them at all. In the case of Jon, even the authors best efforts to paint him in a positive light only increase my disdain and contempt for him.

 

If you skipped chapters that means you haven't actually read the books, so you don't know the story and already missed so much you have no idea what is going on. Give up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2019 at 9:14 AM, Tyrion1991 said:

These things suggest that the series is built upon Stark fan service

Which can also be called "the way the author wrote his story". How can AGOT be built upon "fan service" when he wrote all those Stark POV chapters before any "fans" had even started reading the series?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just stop reading if I were you. If you don't like something don't read it :). You won't understand the story if you skim/skip chapters especially since the Starks have so many POVs, so what is the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had a do over I would not read it because I am tired of waiting for another book that  will never come.  I feel certain the show ending is the only ending we will get and it is pretty much the bullet points Martin gave them.  They obviously made some modifications but the final result is basically the same. IF he does FINISH the series, do not hold your breath, then come back to this forum and ask your question.

   Thanks to Martin, I do not read any series anymore unless the series is complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The thing with the Starks is that that they are made for us to love them, because they have similar ethics to what a 21 century human values so if your heart didn't break at the red wedding then probably you should not keep reading. On the other hand I don't believe that everyone's favorite House is House Stark, I myself keep House Tyrell as my personal favorite because I love their characters, their approach to politics and the part they play on the story. So if you don't understand why House Stark is important to the story and you can't enjoy their stories, then you should probably stop reading the books. I still don't understand how can someone not like these characters though, they are written so well and you can get to their mentality so easily because The Starks are the readers to some extend. 

Edited by Dreadscythe95

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall the first time I read AGOT being amused at how virtually all the Stark kids, at some point or another, ran from a room, their eyes wet with tears they feared others would notice.

"Weepy little freaks," I said to myself.

Fortunately, GRRM pushed them into a storyline where horrible things happened so often, they ran out of tears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

The thing with the Starks is that that they are made for us to love them, because they have similar ethics to what a 21 century human values so if your heart didn't break at the red wedding then probably you should not keep reading. On the other hand I don't believe that everyone's favorite House is House Stark, I myself keep House Tyrell as my personal favorite because I love their characters, their approach to politics and the part they play on the story. So if you don't understand why House Stark is important to the story and you can't enjoy their stories, then you should probably stop reading the books. I still don't understand how can someone not like these characters though, they are written so well and you can get to their mentality so easily because The Starks are the readers to some extend. 

 

I like Sansa. I just don’t like her family or the presumption that I should like them or the First Men Cause.

Which is the issue. What to you comes across as making them relatable actually often has the opposite effect. All this King if the Nurth, just increases my contempt for them even as it’s intended to make me root for them. It makes them feel out of place and untrue to the world. I can’t believe that Neds kids could be that sheltered from the real world.

It is a heart rending scene. Aryas reaction to that and it’s aftermath is one of the saddest things I ve read. But that’s not because “King of the Nurth” or because of anything endearing in Arya herself. A stone could go through that and it would be sad.

To go down the list:

-  George acts like Iam supposed to think of Jon as a young Aragon but he’s done nothing to warrant that and it makes him feel generic. Iam not impressed. If he went through what Theon and Jamie did he would break a hundred times over.

He’s introduced as a jock with a chip on his shoulder. He’s bland and lacks the flaws and conflicts which make, say, Theon or Jamie so compelling. He also has plot armour a mile deep and the whole “he’s the true heir” is offensive to me because that means Dany getting the throne taken away from her by somebody who has done absolutely nothing to earn it. He has achieved nothing and deserves to amount to nothing.

My reaction was “he had it coming” when he got stabbed and killed. Unfortunately his plot armour will likely regenerate like the terminator and he’ll be back.

- Arya is just an Edge Lord from the moment she’s introduced. Rogues are boring and her story more boring than most. I don’t see why Iam supposed to like this smart ass who is basically mean to everyone she meets. I get that George is going for “she a no-nonsense and straight talking kind of girl”. No. Just no.

- Bran is incredibly boring and he is an arrogant self absorbed brat who gets himself into trouble. This apparently is enough to make me look the other way when he abuses Hodor. Plus George’s take on magic is very threadbare and generic. 

If a group starts calling itself the First Men and pride themselves on their Nordic blood and vigour; alarm bells should start ringing. It’s a double standard for GRRM to set that on a romantic pedestal and demonise it with the Valyrians. George is satirising the whole “Blood of Numenor” with one case and then accepting it without question in  another. Plus it’s generic as all hell and I dislike being told I should like something.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

I like Sansa. I just don’t like her family or the presumption that I should like them or the First Men Cause.

Which is the issue. What to you comes across as making them relatable actually often has the opposite effect. All this King if the Nurth, just increases my contempt for them even as it’s intended to make me root for them. It makes them feel out of place and untrue to the world. I can’t believe that Neds kids could be that sheltered from the real world.

It is a heart rending scene. Aryas reaction to that and it’s aftermath is one of the saddest things I ve read. But that’s not because “King of the Nurth” or because of anything endearing in Arya herself. A stone could go through that and it would be sad.

To go down the list:

-  George acts like Iam supposed to think of Jon as a young Aragon but he’s done nothing to warrant that and it makes him feel generic. Iam not impressed. If he went through what Theon and Jamie did he would break a hundred times over.

He’s introduced as a jock with a chip on his shoulder. He’s bland and lacks the flaws and conflicts which make, say, Theon or Jamie so compelling. He also has plot armour a mile deep and the whole “he’s the true heir” is offensive to me because that means Dany getting the throne taken away from her by somebody who has done absolutely nothing to earn it. He has achieved nothing and deserves to amount to nothing.

My reaction was “he had it coming” when he got stabbed and killed. Unfortunately his plot armour will likely regenerate like the terminator and he’ll be back.

- Arya is just an Edge Lord from the moment she’s introduced. Rogues are boring and her story more boring than most. I don’t see why Iam supposed to like this smart ass who is basically mean to everyone she meets. I get that George is going for “she a no-nonsense and straight talking kind of girl”. No. Just no.

- Bran is incredibly boring and he is an arrogant self absorbed brat who gets himself into trouble. This apparently is enough to make me look the other way when he abuses Hodor. Plus George’s take on magic is very threadbare and generic. 

If a group starts calling itself the First Men and pride themselves on their Nordic blood and vigour; alarm bells should start ringing. It’s a double standard for GRRM to set that on a romantic pedestal and demonise it with the Valyrians. George is satirising the whole “Blood of Numenor” with one case and then accepting it without question in  another. Plus it’s generic as all hell and I dislike being told I should like something.

 

 

 

 

Your take on some of the characters is very different from mine, and seems to have missed all character growth somehow, and attributes the flaws of one or two members (that are dead) to the whole family. Maybe  from you skimming? That alone tells me you are already not reading the books, so why continue?

You like the type of characters you like and GRRM likes the types of characters that you don't like. I haven't read his other works, but those who have say that the Arya type of character is a standard of his, for example. A plot similar to Brans with the CotF hive mind in the trees seems like something he has done before as well. And in his original outline, that admittedly there have been many changes from, he described Dany as the greater threat from the East. And one thing that doesn't seem to have changed is who the protagonists are, and who the anti hero's and antagonists are. In interviews he's likened dragons to nuclear weapons, and is well known for not liking war.

So if you don't like the Starks, regardless of why, and the character you like is someone who has weapons of mass destruction, and wages war more often than not...Well, then you may not be the target audience for this series. Nothing wrong with that, it's an inherent issue of this story format where you have no villains and get POV chapters form both protagonists, anti-hero's and antagonists and all characters have good and bad traits, that some people will be attracted more to the anti hero's, and antagonists, and better to figure out now than after reading Winds, then waiting another decade+ for Dream only to hate the way the story ends. 

As for First Men, based on the name and link to a nature based religion, I'm guessing their name is based more on First Nations, as it's simply that they were the first men on Westeros that earned them that name in the story. The history of the Starks is anti annexing another culture, not saying first men blood and religion is good, Valyrian is bad. This is what Dany does, she goes in and uproots and entire culture. If that story appeals to you, fine, but I doubt that Valyrian cultural superiority because of their magic blood is GRRM's desired message. The Starks assimilated into CotF culture and religion in the end. We don't even know what their original religion or culture was. That is the is the difference, and it's not a double standard, it's just that GRRM is showing that he believes assimilating to a place you move to is better than up-heaving a preexisting culture. When Aegon conquered Westeros he took their main religion as his own, took Maesters with him for advice, spent years learning about the land, and only did so when there was someone who's existence posed a threat to the people. Dany disregarded the customs of the Dothraki when they didn't suit her, in Salvers Bay, she went in and attacked with knowing nothing about their culture, and resented every attempt the people made to get her to respect their customs. Jon assimilated into and learned about the Free-Folk, when he disagreed he explained why but didn't try and force them to change to his beliefs. When he needed to negotiate with them, he knew enough about them to do so in a way that they respected. 

If that message doesn't appeal to you, then I suggest you don't continue with the series. I have never felt like the story was forcing me to like certain characters, and wonder if that feeling you have is that there is a disconnect with some of the central themes of the story? I've had that happen to me with other authors, where their beliefs and mine didn't align, and I wouldn't read those authors again, regardless of how acclaimed or popular their works are. If your asking us for reasons to keep reading, sounds to me like you have already disengaged from the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You should stop reading if you don't like the Starks.  They will play key roles right up to the conclusion of the story.

Edited by White Ravens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Azarial said:

Your take on some of the characters is very different from mine, and seems to have missed all character growth somehow, and attributes the flaws of one or two members (that are dead) to the whole family. Maybe  from you skimming? That alone tells me you are already not reading the books, so why continue?

You like the type of characters you like and GRRM likes the types of characters that you don't like. I haven't read his other works, but those who have say that the Arya type of character is a standard of his, for example. A plot similar to Brans with the CotF hive mind in the trees seems like something he has done before as well. And in his original outline, that admittedly there have been many changes from, he described Dany as the greater threat from the East. And one thing that doesn't seem to have changed is who the protagonists are, and who the anti hero's and antagonists are. In interviews he's likened dragons to nuclear weapons, and is well known for not liking war.

So if you don't like the Starks, regardless of why, and the character you like is someone who has weapons of mass destruction, and wages war more often than not...Well, then you may not be the target audience for this series. Nothing wrong with that, it's an inherent issue of this story format where you have no villains and get POV chapters form both protagonists, anti-hero's and antagonists and all characters have good and bad traits, that some people will be attracted more to the anti hero's, and antagonists, and better to figure out now than after reading Winds, then waiting another decade+ for Dream only to hate the way the story ends. 

As for First Men, based on the name and link to a nature based religion, I'm guessing their name is based more on First Nations, as it's simply that they were the first men on Westeros that earned them that name in the story. The history of the Starks is anti annexing another culture, not saying first men blood and religion is good, Valyrian is bad. This is what Dany does, she goes in and uproots and entire culture. If that story appeals to you, fine, but I doubt that Valyrian cultural superiority because of their magic blood is GRRM's desired message. The Starks assimilated into CotF culture and religion in the end. We don't even know what their original religion or culture was. That is the is the difference, and it's not a double standard, it's just that GRRM is showing that he believes assimilating to a place you move to is better than up-heaving a preexisting culture. When Aegon conquered Westeros he took their main religion as his own, took Maesters with him for advice, spent years learning about the land, and only did so when there was someone who's existence posed a threat to the people. Dany disregarded the customs of the Dothraki when they didn't suit her, in Salvers Bay, she went in and attacked with knowing nothing about their culture, and resented every attempt the people made to get her to respect their customs. Jon assimilated into and learned about the Free-Folk, when he disagreed he explained why but didn't try and force them to change to his beliefs. When he needed to negotiate with them, he knew enough about them to do so in a way that they respected. 

If that message doesn't appeal to you, then I suggest you don't continue with the series. I have never felt like the story was forcing me to like certain characters, and wonder if that feeling you have is that there is a disconnect with some of the central themes of the story? I've had that happen to me with other authors, where their beliefs and mine didn't align, and I wouldn't read those authors again, regardless of how acclaimed or popular their works are. If your asking us for reasons to keep reading, sounds to me like you have already disengaged from the story.

 

Well where to start. 

I don’t believe that having power makes you evil. Everyone has the physical capacity to kill another person. Very few people actually do. If it’s not true with knives then why should it be different with superpowers or dragons?

Violence is sometimes necessary to change things for the better. King Charles 1 could never have been talked into abdicating and neither could James 2. Without those two conflicts you wouldn’t have had the development of Parliamentary Democracy in England. The country could have slid into absolutism like France. We are blessed to live in a time of unprecedented peace and plenty compared to our ancestors. We should not judge them for circumstances beyond their control.

Machine men with machine minds have killed far more people than those driven by momentary lapses of judgement or anger. There were plenty of bookish and clever men in Germany and Russia. Men who did their duty as they put people to death and turned their hearts to ice. So yes, George telling us to trust the thinkers is not a good idea. How many Arabic experts do you think the US has? Love may be the death of duty, but duty tends to be the death of everyone. 

Chamberlain wanted a diplomatic solution. But he was a fool to trust Hitler. Just because you want a peaceful solution and hear the other side out does not make it right or just. George can do whatever cookie cutter, Dragonage sidequest, to justify always seeking the diplomatic option but it’s dependent on the circumstances. IMO George was brutally unfair to Daenerys in ADWD. He presented her with an impossible situation and made the slavers act irrationally. Everything went wrong for Dany and she was setup to fail to force a character shift. I could not get away with that in a Pathfinder RPG.

So yeah I disagree with a lot of his themes. However I still liked Danys storyline immensely. Yet it’s the notion that her story is ultimately a satire of Rands arc in Wheel of Time which bothers me. Which would be a shame because, as mentioned before, there simply are not characters like Daenerys in doorstopper fantasy series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a wonder you made it pass the 1st book or the 2nd book etc. Ultimately only you can decide if you wanna keep reading but imo it doesn't really sound like you enjoy the overall story of the books, if you skip a lot of the chapters in the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×