Broken Hearts and Hugos

Ulrika O’Brien launches BEAM 14 with an editorial that might have gone unnoticed outside the circle of FAAn Award voters if she hadn’t (1) given John Scalzi the KTF treatment and (2) Scalzi hadn’t tweeted a link to the zine to his 165,000 Twitter followers.

…But once a year, like clockwork, the Fan Hugo short list comes out and somehow I can never quite avoid seeing it. When I do see it, I increasingly find a bunch of total strangers who’ve not visibly participated in fandom, and I see red all over again. I will inevitably be told that the failing is in me, that were I to educate myself, I would discover their merit. As often as not, whatever merit is involved, what I actually discover are more neo-pros doing nothing remotely to do with fandom as we know it, or if they do, only in pursuit of making money off us. So thanks, Scalzi. Fuck you. Wait, what now? Why am I still on about John Scalzi’s Fan Writer Hugo, eleven years after the parade? Because it was John Scalzi who finally broke the Fan Hugos, that’s why. And he didn’t do the rest of the Hugos any favors, either, as it turns out….

John Scalzi’s mild anwer starts here.

Responses include Camestros Felapton’s “I Guess I’m Talking About John Scalzi Today”.

Taking two steps back and looking at the bigger picture and the actual societal changes occuring in the relevant time period, what do we see? Nothing mysterious and nothing secretly controlled by John Scalzi but rather the increasing and inevitable online nature of fandom, along with generational change. The period of 2000 to 2020, was always going to be one in which fandom would have the kind of generational change that fandom is always having because people get older and people from a younger generation become more influential. To use tired generational-terms, a shift from Baby Boomers to Gen-X with (now) more Millennials (and younger).

The accompanying shift was technological with blogs, blogging networks (particularly Live Journal at one point), social media platforms and commerical pop-culture media sites changing where fan-related discourse was happening. This was a cross-generational change (e.g. GRRM’s Live Journal or how influential Mike Glyer’s File770 fanzine-turned-blog became during the Puppy Debarkle).

Doc Rocket’s tweet is especially interesting for its “no one, really” conclusion —

Alexandra Erin’s thread starts here.

Michi Trota observed:

And Kameron Hurley doesn’t want to be left out –

In fact, seeing people say they’re sorry that Ulrika didn’t cuss them out, too, reminds me of the Watergate days when everyone wanted to be added to Nixon’s enemies list!

169 thoughts on “Broken Hearts and Hugos

  1. I heard the same vitriol from the sf fanzine fans when Universal Translator was nominated for a Fan Hugo in 1986! I was silent editor (my choice) on the zine, which was a compilation of available media fanzines with short descriptions, pricing and mailing information. You’a’thunk the world had come to an end. Who are these upstarts? They bought the nomination. UT doesn’t deserve to be on the ballot.

    I’m here to say (a) we were fanzine fans, and no we did not buy any votes. The readers decided since they couldn’t (for whatever reason get a Star Trek zine) on the ballot, they would rally around a zine that served all media fandom. And that’s how UT got on the ballot. SF fans who preferred media fanzines nominated and put it there. End of story. (Well, not quite. We lost to Lan’s Lantern.)

  2. Cheryl Morgan occasionally writes of the gatekeepersxwho were annoyed at Emerald City’s Hugo win back in 2004. I miss Emerald City. It was a must-read for me.

  3. I’m confused. I’m a Scalzi fan, but I admit that I don’t quite see how a pro SF writer can or should win the “Fan writer” Hugo, although from what I understand, that was perfect;y acceptable under the rules. How did he “break” the Fan Hugos?

  4. A pro writer can win best fan writer by being a fan and writing fan stuff.

  5. Fred Pohl won Best Fan Writer in 2010 for his fan writing, and at the time he’d been a pro for sixty years.

  6. The thesis, that a pro writer is “intruding” on Fan categories and has an advantage over “Real” fans is one that I remember back when I was first being active in online fandom. I remember so much drama and debate and spilled pixels and written scrolls on the topic.

    It’s not sustainable to try and police who a fan is any more it was sustainable to try and police fanzines to not include blogs. (Policing podcasts from being fanzines, a la Starship Sofa, was settled by a new category)

  7. @JBWoodford: And pros have been winning the Hugo for best fan writer since at least Wilson Tucker in 1970 (he’d been a pro since the 1950s) (Panshin won in 1967, but he hadn’t done that much pro-writing by then, I think). Like James says, pros can do fan writing (and some fans, like Dave Langford, do a little pro-writing).

  8. Poor Ulrika. People are winning the fan Hugos without being part of her tiny corner of fandom, without seeking or receiving her blessing, and fandom continues to grow.

    Yeah, that’s probably a bit mean of me, but I’ve gotten really tired of gatekeepers who would prefer that, of the two choices available, change or die, fandom should die.

  9. Leaving aside the invective of the essay, is she wrong that fans are being squeezed out of fan categories by pros? We’ve gone in the direction that anybody is a fan writer if the work considered for nomination wasn’t commercial in intent, even if they are full-time pros. I wouldn’t mind a correction towards the notion that award-worthy fan writers, fanzines and fancasts ought to be people making contributions within fandom as fans.

    We can achieve that by nominating and voting with that as our criteria, of course.

    In a previous award year I made a complaint to the Hugo committee that Castalia House blog should be disqualified as a nominee for best fanzine. It’s the promotional blog of a for-profit company and I documented examples of it engaging in for-profit activities. The complaint was rejected. I left the experience feeling like the rules of the fan categories aren’t being taken seriously enough. I remain completely unconvinced that it is a fanzine.

  10. I feel embarrassed for her. How awful it would be to be an adult and be so childish and clueless.

    But also, how dare she insist that Scalzi is not a fan. How dare she insist that I’m not fan — that even though I participate in Worldcon and WSFS meetings and the Hugo Awards, I’m not a Fan because I don’t enjoy the old-fashioned fanzines and so I don’t read them or write them. How dare she claim that I am not a Fan Writer.

    How small and selfish and pathetic her little world must be.

    I do feel a bit sad for her. Despite all of the good things she’s done, in and for fandom and for Worldcon, what she’s going to be remembered for now is throwing a big baby tantrum about the fact that fandom has evolved and changed since she got into it 4 decades ago, and it’s no longer her little personal playground. 😐

  11. I thought the fan Hugos were broken by the 1980’s amendment that (ISTM) limited their circulation so much that most voters couldn’t get them; possibly I misunderstood the impact, but I’m amused that somebody thinks one person could break such a system simply by existing. Maybe I’ll read the rants and responses….

    But I’m not surprised at small-mindedness; there’s a long line of fanzine fans who believe they are the only fandom — which usually just means they argue among themselves about what’s a real fanzine, but occasionally they spilled over into complaints about how could so-and-so (who had made major contributions to (e.g.) convention running) possibly be a fan GoH.

  12. The more things change….

    The thirty-second convention was a monster, though. There were some four thousand people in attendance, and I’m not sure that’s entirely a good thing. It was almost impossible to see old friends because between any two of the true conventioneers there were a thousand strangers.

    That’s from Isaac Asimov’s introduction to “The Girl Who Was Plugged In” in The Hugo Winners Volume 3. (Amusingly, he goes on to say that Discon II was so big that he can’t say whether he met Tiptree or not.)

  13. @Goobergunch: I’m reminded of the story OGH wrote: “The Men Who Corflued Mohammed” about a fan who uses a time machine to edit out all the forms of fandom he doesn’t approve of.

  14. But also, how dare she insist that Scalzi is not a fan. How dare she insist that I’m not fan — that even though I participate in Worldcon and WSFS meetings and the Hugo Awards, I’m not a Fan because I don’t enjoy the old-fashioned fanzines and so I don’t read them or write them. How dare she claim that I am not a Fan Writer.

    This seems like a misread of the essay to me. She questioned Scalzi’s fan bonafides because (a) he’s a pro and (b) he attended his first con in 2005 and won fan writer quickly thereafter. She didn’t limit fandom to people reading old-fashioned print fanzines. She primarily challenged people who are pros, like the criteria she used to say Randall Munroe of xkcd isn’t a fan artist: “Despite the fact that he makes his full-time living from his comic and does not participate in fandom in any way, the Hugo administrators that year did not disqualify him.”

    Presumably you’d be deemed a fan writer by Ulrika, since File 770 is an entirely non-commercial fanzine, nobody’s making any money and you’re not a pro. But I’m making a guess there. Maybe everybody but Mike is excommunicated.

  15. Chip Hancock: I remember in the mid-1980s Larry Carmody (at a Lunarians meeting) stating that there were only 50 fanzine fans in the U.S. (by which he meant traditional sf fanzines). There were several of us media fanzine fans in the room who retorted that we were fanzine fans as well, and how dare he ignore our contributions. La plus ca change . . .

  16. The thirty-second convention was a monster, though. There were some four thousand people in attendance, and I’m not sure that’s entirely a good thing. It was almost impossible to see old friends because between any two of the true conventioneers there were a thousand strangers.

    Eh. Thirty seconds is way too short for a convention anyway. [rimshot]

  17. rcade: Presumably you’d be deemed a fan writer by Ulrika, since File 770 is an entirely non-commercial fanzine, nobody’s making any money and you’re not a pro. But I’m making a guess there. Maybe everybody but Mike is excommunicated.

    Ah, but I’m sure that she’s never heard of me, so I can’t possibly be a Fan Writer. 🙄

  18. Boy, what an unhappy person. Is it for sure that this isn’t a front for Del Arroz? It reads like a conspiracy manifesto–I kept waiting for a reference to “sheeple”.
    If this is a sample of the style and quality of the writing, it’s not surprising that it’s not nominated, let alone winning.

  19. I read the whole editorial/rant, rather irritated by having to read it in pdf form* but I did it, woo, go me, I’ll never get those spoons back. Anyway.

    Firstly, the “fandom” when referring to a work that the OP objects to is from transformative works fandom, and it is not used instead of fandom-as-culture. I am in fandom, as in I am a fan who participates in transformative works fandom, and also sf/f lit/congoing fandom (although I’m sure the OP would just call the latter “fandom”) via File770, and I am also in Temeraire fandom, as in I hang out with other Temeraire fans and discuss Temeraire with them and read Temeraire fanfic and look at Temeraire fanart and so on. Temeraire is a fandom, as in it has a community of fans who talk about it and write fanfiction and meta and create fanart and so on. Calling it “a fandom” is inextricable from the existence of a fannish culture. Transformative works fandom is just as valid a fannish culture as sf/f lit/congoing fandom, and our traditions and terminology are important and work just fine for us, thank you.

    Secondly, the OP repeatedly refers to internet fandom and internet fannish activity in deeply dismissive terms. I am not okay with that, at all. Just for example, the Organization for Transformative Works and their projects — Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Transformative Works and Cultures, the Oral History, the planned Fan Video and Multimedia — are in my opinion, some of the finest fannish achievements certainly of the past fifteen years, possibly ever, and by their very nature are organised and exist almost entirely online. File770 has built a fannish community on the internet. Internet fandom is still fandom. Internet fandom is still fannish culture. Internet fandom is still fannish organising. Anyone who decides it doesn’t count because it isn’t their sort of fandom can go step on a lego.**

    All that being very-irritably-said, it wouldn’t be the worst idea ever to exclude work that’s specifically and definitely been paid for. I’d consider that pro work, really. But excluding people because they don’t meet someone’s arbitrary definition of fan? Nah. Not for you to gatekeep. Not for anyone to gatekeep.

    *It might be just me, but while magazine formats work great on paper and are often very nice to look at, I find them a bit difficult to read on a screen. Plus I can’t change the text size like I can with a website. (Fun tip for traditional fanzine fandom: Blogs are accessible! In more ways than just being easier to find!)

    **I considered using a different one that I came across recently, but I think most Filers would agree it’s too harsh for all but the most egregious crimes: “I hope they make a film of a book you love, and they change the plot and none of the characters are how you imagined them to be.”

  20. Harold Osler: Is it for sure that this isn’t a front for Del Arroz?

    Yes, she is a real person, who has been involved in con and fanzine fandom for a long time.

    Although she does share JDA’s contempt for Codes of Conduct and harassment reporting (women in fandom should just deal with it and not make a fuss about it, the same way she always did), so they are not completely on different paths. 😐

  21. Meredith: What, really? Source?

    I’ve seen the comments in more than one place, including Facebook, but you know hard it is to dig out comments made a long time ago on group pages there, and I didn’t make a point of taking screenshots or copying links, I just sighed and rolled my eyes. She got pushback on it. Sadly, she’s certainly far from the only woman in fandom who shares that opinion and says so. I’m sorry to say that it’s not a remarkable occurrence.

  22. @Meredith–I’d be hard pressed to link to a specific source for what JJ said, but it’s certainly Ulrika’s attitudes she has expressed it over the years. I’ve known her since an online fandom she didn’t altogether scorn, rec.arts.sf.fandom and rec.srts.sf.written. It was never acceptable to hold opinions about fandom that she didn’t share, there was only ever one acceptable path into fandom, and, well, in more recent years I’ve just tended to avoid her.

  23. @JJ

    Ah, Facebook, where nothing is ever findable if more than a week has gone by.

    I don’t really understand people who go “I dealt with a sucky thing so everyone else should, too” — whenever I’ve had to deal with a sucky thing I end up with pretty definite opinions about how the sucky thing should stop being a thing. Because it sucked.

    @Lis Carey

    Sounds delightful all round…

  24. Meredith, it’s more of a case of “this is no big deal, get over it and stop being such a delicate snowflake about it” attitude. She doesn’t think it was/is a problem, therefore, no one else should, either. 😐

  25. @JJ

    Sigh. Heaven forbid someone should experience different things and things differently, huh.

    Funny thing, I had a quick google just to see if she’d ever said anything somewhere easier to find than Facebook’s black hole (nothing relevant) and half of the results were for the comment section of Whatever.

  26. The line between fan and pro has always been fuzzy and most pros are also fans. And John Scalzi’s fanwriter win was for his blog, which is unpaid for the love labour, even if he does use it to promote himself and his books.Therefore it was an unobjectionable win.

    There is a kernel of truth in that article, for in recent years we have seen a couple of fanwriter finalists whose main body of fan writing was for paying markets, which is a potential problem. Scalzi, however, is not an example for that, because Whatever is unpaid fanwriting.

  27. So, even if we accept O’Brien’s fundamental premise that in the last decade or so, a bunch of people have won awards where they were not or should not have been eligible, I don’t see where she gets off on laying the blame squarely at Scalzi’s door.

    Her whole argument begins with the claim that what counts in each category is defined by the “collective cultural knowledge of fandom” rather than the literal letter of the rules – and then she goes on to say that a whole bunch of nominees/winners shouldn’t have been eligible, despite getting the nominations of enough Hugo votes.

    In an attempt to square the circle of “it’s not the letter of the rules but fandom consensus that decides eligibility”/”despite falling within both the letter of the rules and fandom consensus, X wasn’t/shouldn’t have been eligible” we get a bunch of No True Scotsman arguments that the people who voted for, say, Scalzi as fanwriter aren’t actually fans – or, at least, not the right kind of fans. Because they (we) haven’t been in fandom for long enough.

    If you don’t think that the Hugo rules should strictly circumscribe eligibility, you don’t get to complain when things you think shouldn’t be eligible get on the ballot. If you do think that they should, you don’t get to complain when things which are eligible according to the letter of the law get nominated.

    And, frankly, if O’Brien’s position is that Hugo eligibility is decided by fan culture, she can’t claim to not be part of Hugo Fan Culture (“I don’t give a rat’s ass about the Hugos”, “I don’t care a great deal about the Hugos in themselves”) and yet arrogate to herself the right to decide what is and is not within the limits of Hugo Fan Culture Consensus, in the face of what actual people who are actually voting on the Hugos actually vote for.

  28. RE: Fan writers and paid writing.

    I do think that my eligiblity for ever becoming a finalist for Best Fan Writer (maybe someday!) would be for stuff I do for Skiffy and Fanty, or Nerds of a Feather, rather than my reviews at Tor.com.

    But since I don’t have a single place of my own, it does make things murkier.

    Fan writer finalists who are getting in on the strength of paid work does, per Cora above, make me uneasy.

  29. And frankly, the hypocrisy of “The chances of incredibly deserving fans like Dan Steffan and Kate Yule ever winning the Hugo recognition their work merited are nil, and John Scalzi doesn’t regret a thing.” is astounding. What precisely were the chances of them winning the Dave Langford award for best Dave Langford (1989–2007)?

    In the ’79–’07 period, from Langford’s first nomination to Scalzi’s victory, only 5 different fanwriters won in 29 years. From 1984, there were only two different winners. By contrast, in the ’08–’18 period, a different fan writer has won every single year, and Mike Glyer of this parish is I the only winner in that period with a previous award.

    Either she’s written this editorial without any self-awareness about the problems in fandom before 2008, or she’s just looking for an excuse to bash Scalzi and isn’t too bothered about intellectual honesty.

  30. WHAT? John Scalzi “broke the Hugo Awards”? (Heartily Laughs). No, no, no, no, no…THAT’S MY JOB! ?

  31. The real victim here is Vox Day. Here he thought he had burned the Hugos to the ground when all along the conflagration had been started by some smoldering oily rags that Scalzi had left in the corner.

  32. I’ve been an Ansible subscriber for a long-ass time and don’t see anything wrong with “somebody besides Dave Langford should win once in a while”.

    She complains about Elizabeth Leggett winning best fan artist in 2015, but honestly looking at the other nominees I have to wonder how they got nominated in the first place beyond ‘they’re the big fish in the small pond of fandom’.

  33. Ob:Old Phart:

    Wrangles over Trufandom are a fine old faanish tradition. Cf The Enchanted Duplicator, originally published in 1954.

    And besides which, in my fannish tradition, the permeability of the membrane between fan and pro has been long regarded as a feature, not a bug. So there.

  34. Cool.
    Literally didn’t think anyone was going to see those tweets. Thanks, Mike!

  35. My curiosity was piqued and I did set out to attempt to read the essay… but I found the relentless spewing of unhinged histrionic vitriol to be a distinct turnoff. It reminded me of why I hated the Puppies so much. It wasn’t JUST that what they wanted was vile, it was ALSO the grotesque, spittle-flecked, contempt-fueled way they inevitably chose to talk about what they wanted.

    I’m inclined to see that kind of rhetorical extremity as cover for a weak argument. You know, “I’m really steamed about this thing, but if I just tell you what it is I’m steamed about, you’re going to think ‘why on earth would anybody get so upset about that?’ so instead I’m going to SHOOT ACID AND FLAMES FROM MY MOUTH WITH WORDS and hope that convinces you.”

    As a side note, I generally loathe gatekeeping of any sort, whether it’s “hard” SF fans gatekeeping against fantasy, “true” horror fans gatekeeping against paranormal adventures, the “literary” establishment gatekeeping against SFF, old guard fans gatekeeping against newer fans, or whatever.

    For me, one of the charms of the Worldcon community and traditional-style fandom in general has always been the lack of a rigid distinction between “fan” and “pro.”

    I remember some grumbling back when Scalzi won, and it seemed misplaced to me then, and still does. Remember when Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire won the Hugo for best novel? I do. There were AUDIBLE groans throughout the audience. But you don’t see anybody trying to claim now that Rowling “broke” the Hugos.

  36. The Hugo Awards is a popularity contest where the results are determined by those of us eligible to vote who choose to do so.

    As it should be.

    Personally, I think Ulrika just wanted the hits from the inevitable Scalzi link-back.

  37. Am I the only one who got to her second assertion of “I don’t give a rat’s ass about the Hugos,” decided to take her at her word, and stopped reading?

  38. The thing that really gets me about Ulrika’s article is that she’s so adamantly against Scalzi’s alleged gatekeeping, but the entire editorial is littered with gatekeeping vitriol about newer fans who aren’t part of her mythical “fandom culture.”

  39. Not having read most of the above comments, I think that a lot of people miss the point that people who are not fans, but rather writers or artists operating in the fantastic sphere—and who are unfamiliar with the traditions and especially the history of fandom and the Hugo Awards—are being nominated for and winning awards meant to honor the best produced by our microcosm.

    Because nowadays so many people consider themselves fans even if they’ve never heard of Mike Glyer or Mike Glicksohn, Amazing Stories, but have seen all the Star Wars films, and the Lord of the Rings films (but have never heard of Tom Bombadil). People who say “newbie” when the word we used for 50 years was “neofan.”

    Nearly 30 years ago when I was GoH (google it!) at ConFiction, I spoke about how SF and fandom as we knew it were 20th Century phenomena. And here we are, 20 years after that century, and things As We Knew Them are going away, faster and faster.

    And, by the way, I post using my actual name, so can’t comment while hiding behind a screen name.

    As a Bjo cartoon once said, “Welcome to fandom, Mr. Kemp!”

  40. @ Mike Glyer
    Thanks for your usual excellent job of listing all the sources anyone might want to consult!

  41. I am reminded of the “I am aware of all internet traditions” meme here.
    Andrew,:
    “I think that a lot of people miss the point that people who are not fans, but rather writers or artists operating in the fantastic sphere”

    If I play Devil’s advocate to my own feelings on the matter and agree with you for the purposes of discussion–how do you define this distinction? Is anyone who has had a published novel not a fan anymore for purposes of this? Is anyone who has ever had a story published not a fan anymore for purposes of this?

  42. Because nowadays so many people consider themselves fans even if they’ve never heard of Mike Glyer or Mike Glicksohn, Amazing Stories, but have seen all the Star Wars films, and the Lord of the Rings films (but have never heard of Tom Bombadil).

    …and? Who decided that was the gatekeeping criteria? Is there a specified reading list and required biographical study chapter people should be tested on before they are allowed in the Hallowed Halls of True Fandom (apparently also known as the Old Farts Complaining and Yelling at Clouds Club)?

  43. @Andrew I. Porter–

    Not having read most of the above comments, I think that a lot of people miss the point

    Yep, that sets you up for people to take your comments seriously, for sure.

    Because nowadays so many people consider themselves fans even if they’ve never heard of Mike Glyer or Mike Glicksohn, Amazing Stories, but have seen all the Star Wars films, and the Lord of the Rings films (but have never heard of Tom Bombadil). People who say “newbie” when the word we used for 50 years was “neofan.”

    How dare anyone find fandom by any path other than the very first fans, who found each other in the lettercolumn of Amazing, just like Andrew and Ulrika…oops. Well, at least, how dare the language change! At all!

    And, by the way, I post using my actual name, so can’t comment while hiding behind a screen name.

    A quick and dirty Google search suggests I’ve been posting as Lis Carey since rec.arts.sf.fandom days, and not the slightly more formal Elisabeth Carey. I’ve been on concoms and bid committees, and chaired a Boskone. You and I have been on panels together, at a worldcon.

    Some people here post under their real names. Others don’t, but their identities are known to at least some other regulars, if not all. And yes, some may, perhaps, be truly anonymous except as we know them here. But they are consistent and real, not hiding from consequences of what they say, except perhaps at their jobs where maintaining an absolute separation is necessary. As it is in some professions and positions, as you know.

    It’s not 1930 anymore. Nearly 90 years later, this should not be surprising. At all.

  44. Andrew I. Porter: Not having read most of the above comments

    Then why are you commenting from a position of ignorance? Do you think that lends any credence to your words, or do you think it might just make you look arrogant and clueless?

     
    Andrew I. Porter: Because nowadays so many people consider themselves fans even if they’ve never heard of Mike Glyer or Mike Glicksohn, Amazing Stories, but have seen all the Star Wars films, and the Lord of the Rings films (but have never heard of Tom Bombadil). People who say “newbie” when the word we used for 50 years was “neofan.”

    And who are you to decide that they are not fans? Who are you to decide which things people have to know about in order to legitimately be fans?

     
    Andrew I. Porter: things As We Knew Them are going away, faster and faster.

    Things as they were known are changing. That’s how life works. Fandom has grown and evolved and changed. I’m sorry that upsets you, but whining about it does you no credit.

  45. Andrew I. Porter: And, by the way, I post using my actual name, so can’t comment while hiding behind a screen name.

    I’m sure you think you’re saying something meaningful here, but the only thing you’re doing is pointing out how clueless you are about the fact that your privilege as a white man means that you don’t experience the stalking and rape and death threats that women and people of color and transgender people do, merely for expressing an opinion online.

    And having seen a number of your vile comments which Mike has been forced to delete, such as the one where you suggested that anyone who doesn’t like the same things you do is not a fan and should be euthanized (aka murdered), you seriously ought to consider posting anonymously. Because you’ve been doing as good a job as Ms. O’Brien at overshadowing the good you’ve done in fandom with your egregiously bad behavior.

    Even though I’m aware of a lot of your contributions to fandom, whenever I see your name attached to a comment, I don’t think “Oh, there’s that guy who’s done so much for fandom”. I think “oh god, what horrible thing has that jerk said now?” You might want to consider whether that is really the legacy you want to leave in fandom. 😐

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.