When Novelists Display Intolerance

Cormoran and Robin

J.K. Rowling is one of my favorite living authors. Her Harry Potter series is amazing, of course, but I also like her downbeat The Casual Vacancy novel and love her compelling crime series (written under the Robert Galbraith pen name) starring the pictured-above private investigators Cormoran Strike and Robin Ellacott.

So it was especially disappointing to learn that the mostly liberal, very philanthropic Rowling — almost always tolerant and humanistic in her novels — seemingly has some backward views about transgender people. Here’s a story from two days ago:

That once again brings up the subject — which I’ve covered before — of reading authors we might disagree with on some very important issues. Do we want to spend time with writers who have views that are racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, and/or whatever?

It’s a good question, partly answered by the fact that some authors with backward views keep those views out of their novels while other authors intentionally or subconsciously include those views in their fiction. Also, whether or not one keeps reading those writers can depend on how much you like their work. And of course there are few authors out there whose opinions any particular reader will 100% share. (I did reach that 100% threshold when proofreading my own two books before they were published. 🙂 )

Anyway, if I like a novelist’s work enough, I’ll keep reading them even if one or some of their views bother me. For instance, Rowling’s fifth Cormoran/Robin crime novel — Troubled Blood — is due out this September and I eagerly plan to read it. But I’ll feel some guilt doing so that I never felt before when enjoying Rowling’s superb writing.

I made a different decision with Orson Scott Card. I read one of his novels, which I liked but didn’t love, before learning that he was virulently/publicly anti-gay. Even though there was little indication of that in Lost Boys, I figured why bother reading more of Card’s books — there are countless other authors out there to try.

I reached a similar conclusion regarding the sexist Norman Mailer and John Updike — I just didn’t like their work enough to keep reading them after one book apiece. Ernest Hemingway’s sexism is also off-putting, though my feelings are mixed enough about him and his novels that I’ve read three of them.

Authors such as Jack London and H.P. Lovecraft are well-known for their racism (quite a lot of it in their personal views and some in their fiction), but I like their novels and stories enough to have read many of them despite my dismay over their bigotry.

I’ve also kept reading iconic 19th-century novelists such as Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Charles Dickens, and Sir Walter Scott despite some anti-Semitism in their work. It helps a bit to remember that they were “of their time” — anti-Semitism was pretty blatant in the 1800s, though the great George Eliot broke that mold with the memorable Jewish characters in her fabulous Daniel Deronda. It also helps that Dostoyevsky, Dickens, and Scott were masterful novelists whose anti-Semitic moments in their writing were nowhere near constant. With Dostoyevsky, it was basically some occasional asides in his novels. With Dickens, it was mostly the Fagin character in Oliver Twist, which the author later revised to make less objectionable. And Scott’s painfully stereotypical depiction of the money-lender Isaac in Ivanhoe was counterbalanced by the sympathetic, three-dimensional depiction of Isaac’s daughter Rebecca.

The “of their time” factor is of course also in the debate mix when seeing racism, sexism, and homophobia in older novels. Also, we should always think about whether authors are bigoted people themselves or are not-bigoted people periodically depicting bigotry in their fiction.

Finally, I have a little more tolerance for intolerance from novelists than from politicians, who have such direct lawmaking control over our lives. If those pols are very intolerant people, they won’t get my vote.

How do you feel about authors who espouse prejudiced views in real life and/or in their novels? Do you continue to read them or not?

My literary-trivia book is described and can be purchased here: Fascinating Facts About Famous Fiction Authors and the Greatest Novels of All Time.

In addition to this weekly blog, I write the award-winning “Montclairvoyant” topical-humor column for Baristanet.com. The latest piece — about two huge Black Lives Matter rallies/marches in my town — is here.

69 thoughts on “When Novelists Display Intolerance

  1. Actually many important writers of the past or present have ultra conservative or reactionary views, these include Balzac, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, (about the role of women ) T.S. Elliot, and Solzhenitsyn.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I believe the past author’s like Dickens, Hemingway should be pardoned as many of them were not enlightened on Sexism, LGBT rights ( being gay was considered a mental condition which needed conditioning and treatment) and racism ( which was again proved scientifically to be correct by various scientists of Victorian era).
    Coming to JK Rowling, honestly I’m not a big fan but I believe now that she is in public domain and a celebrity she should be careful and cognizant of her words. She needs to reflect on her beliefs and enlighten herself. She must realize that she has a huge readership and fan base hence she can’t get away with frivolous statements.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you, Tanya! I agree — racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of intolerance were more expected/accepted a long time ago (though still very unfortunate). Today, being like that feels more egregious.


  3. Pingback: When Novelists Display Intolerance — Dave Astor on Literature | Novel Writing Festival

  4. This blog was really quite amazing. JK Rowling is one of my favourite author because of Harry Potter. It was disturbing to know about her being a transphobic but as a human being she does have the right to feel that way and express it, i guess. But after knowing about her being transphobic, I think it had some effects on her writing and it will be difficult to read her with the same excitement.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Dave: I’ve been reading a never-published book manuscript by my father about our time in India in the mid-1950s, when he was part of a University of Illinois agriculture team. He clearly was a “man of his time,” meaning he said stuff he’d never say today if he were alive. But what struck me most was that he also was a man ahead of his time, particularly when it came to the role and competency of women. This Illinois farm boy (1909-1992) was a feminist long before any of his male friends, and maybe some of his female friends. So, writers are complicated, even ones whose books never got published (partly because Dad’s ends on page 354 in the middle of a sentence and I can’t find any ending anywhere).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you, Bill!

      You’re so right about writers (and people in general) being complicated — of their time, behind their time, ahead of their time. Sounds like your father was very much that combination. Not everyone, of course; my parents, for instance, were not very “ahead of their time” in most socially conscious ways.

      So sorry your father (most likely) didn’t finish what sounds like a fascinating book. I’m sure he would be proud that you’ve written many.


    • Small world department:
      A man I knew quite well and for decades made his living– for decades– at the University of Illinois. He edited publications for the U of I’s Agriculture Dept. Did your father publish anything there? If so, there’s a very good chance your father and he knew each other.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Shoemaker Stick to Thy Last, First and Always

    People who are extremely good at one thing are too often able to convince themselves they are good at everything. Especially nowadaze, when actors seem to think they are the first and last word on any matter in the public eye like a sharp stick. It encourages dabbling and spouting off by other brighter professionals, or possibly, it speaks to the sad fact that some of the brightest over the last few generations have devoted themselves to the business of the arts when they might have become valuable members of society, like corporate lawyers or, should they have dared to dream big, investment bankers.

    I’m a bright boy myself, now quite a bit long in the tooth, sure, but I might have done more to uplift the whole wide world with my spindly arms than wasting a zillion hours noodling about on my old guitar. I still evince enough confidence in my formidable intelligence that I will opine on any topic any time, as if I should be taken seriously. Occasionally, upon completion of some statement, I discover there’s a tongue in my cheek. The title, by the way, is meant generally, and is directed not just to a certain legendary jockey.

    Liked by 1 person

    • VERY well said, with clever and droll flourishes, jhNY! I guess it varies with the person — some are good at different things (like you as a writer and musician). If authors and other creative types want to opine intelligently about politics and such, it’s okay by me. I prefer if that opining is tolerant and progressive, but we can’t always have everything. 🙂


  7. As a fellow who has listened to several Wagner operas, read poetry by Ezra Pound, and read a novel or two by Celine, I conclude I am able appreciate works by authors with who I do not share political views or prejudices, so long as they write well.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you, jhNY! Yes, if a writer or other creator with whom one has issues is talented, it’s easier to keep enjoying their creations — albeit with some guilt, perhaps.


  8. ‘ Of their time’ Is that really a good enough excuse ? Who were their readers ? My lockdown reading has included binge-reading vintage crime, 30’s – 50’s… Mass Observation post WWII diaries – 1945 – 49 edited by Simon Garfield adds the anti-Semitic & racist man & woman in the (UK) street voices to those of writers…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you, catonthedovrefell!

      I agree that “of their time” is by no means a totally good excuse. After all, some people in terrible eras were not intolerant — one example being abolitionists during the period of horrific slavery in the U.S. But I guess “of their time” can partly explain things.

      That’s some interesting lockdown reading you’re doing!


    • Hope you have read” A Coffin for Dimitrios” by Eric Ambler and “The Thirty-Nine Steps” by John Buchan or will have done, by the time your season of interest in such things ends, and/or the lockdown frees you to pursue whatever else strikes your fancy. I also like “The Fifth Man” by Manning Coles (actually a pair of writers, man and a woman), as a piece of well-wrought wartime espionage fiction.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Although I’ve a tendency to go further afield in my comments on this blog. I’ll try to stick to the question you ended with regarding authors and books. Of course I’ll continue to read books by J.K. Rowling. I didn’t read all of her comments on the subject and can’t speak to them, but the main reason I haven’t read all of it is that it doesn’t really matter to me. She’s a wonderful writer, and I enjoyed all the Harry Potter books tremendously and whatever she may have said on a certain subject isn’t going to change that. I bought “Ender’s Game” by Orson Scott Card, which had received good reviews, many awards, plus I like sci-fi. I was aware of his homophobic views, but again, that wasn’t important to me, only the book. A few weeks ago, I was commenting here on Jane Austen’s apparent pro-abolition stance, but at the same time I’d never think badly about myself for loving her novels as much as I do, even if she weren’t anti-slavery (we think), nor lose my admiration for her writing. As most here know, I’ve read more crime/mystery novels throughout my life than anyone I know, and most of them feature police detectives, PIs, CIA/FBI agents, lawyers, judges, spies, and many amateur sleuths. There can be violence, gore, lies, deceit, bad cops/agents/etc., and a bending of the rules by the good ones. I never check out the bios of the authors or try to see if they have world views different from mine. Is this a is failing in me?

    The thing is, I have good friends and family who don’t think at all the way I do about many things, especially politics and religion. That doesn’t mean I can, or should, stop loving them and caring about them, because that would make me the intolerant one and would do nothing to change their minds. We are all products of our environment; the ways in which we were raised; the times we live in (as opposed to both younger and older folks); our ancestry and genetics; and the people, books, art, and ideas that influenced us. I like to think of myself as a liberal/progressive non-believer, who tries to always be kind, tolerant and enlightened, but is flawed — I hope I recognize all of my failings. Sorry to go on so long once again, but these are things I think about quite often. If I can forgive my family and friends for their failings, I can certainly do the same for authors and others. Peace.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you, Kat Lit! You said a lot, and said it VERY eloquently.

      I agree with what you said quite a bit, but I guess I’m not quite as tolerant of intolerant views as you are. I do try — for instance, I have a number of longtime friends who are to the right of me in views, and several Trump supporters among my Facebook friends. I let one of those FB friends harass me for my anti-Trump views for months before I finally blocked him when he supported Trump’s misogyny and sordid sexual misconduct history.

      Re your crime/mystery/detective-genre comments: Many of those novels indeed glorify law-enforcement types, which can be troubling — especially during these times. But I still like those kinds of books. 🙂


  10. An excellent post and discussion, Dave. The question becomes – is a book of literary value if the writer in not in sync with my opinion and values. Is an art piece of creative value, if the painter does not share my personal values. I have asked these questions many times when I look into the biographies. Artists, writers, poets are individuals who are influenced by their time, location and cultural norms. I do not have the answers to these questions. What I can control is what I read. I will not give away my valuable time when it could be used for other things. My favourite Maya Angelou quote says is best: “My wish for you is that you continue. Continue to be who and how you are, to astonish a mean world with your acts of kindness.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you, Clanmother! Important questions — all very well stated.

      Among your lines that I found compelling were these: “What I can control is what I read. I will not give away my valuable time when it could be used for other things.” Reminds me that many of us (including myself) have such long to-read lists that we’ll never get to all the books on those lists. So we pick and choose based on various criteria, and one criterion can be whether or not we find an author’s views palatable. But of course there are many novels we’ve all loved without loving some of the novelists’ views.

      GREAT Maya Angelou remark! You always find such excellent quotes!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Those to-read stacks always beckon me. And now with those stacks becoming virtual, we will never run out of books. And that gives me great comfort. I keep that “Maya quote” on my computer table. She does inspire, doesn’t she!?

        Liked by 1 person

        • She does inspire!

          I still haven’t brought myself to read eBooks. I guess I spend too much time on other screens — my laptop and phone. Luckily I’ve had the massive “Outlander” series to read in print form during the pandemic; I just started the seventh of eight novels — averaging more than 1,000 pages apiece. Haven’t been bored yet. 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

  11. Separate the art from the artist, and judge each work on its merit, and on its merit to you.
    I think the NYT writer has a point: If the work is good enough to transcend your opinion of the person who produced it, that’s worth something. One day I hope to encounter such a work.
    In my own experience, it’s a bit of an eyeroll to copyedit, proof, or just plain read a newspaper column full of high-minded ideals written by an editor (not you, Dave!) you know to be an ethically-convenient putz.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you, Don!

      Well said, many good points, and “One day I hope to encounter such a work” is a nicely droll line!

      I’ve also worked under some editors who sounded all ethical and high-minded in their writing but were personally jerks.


  12. I am not going to get all religious, because I am not a religious person, but somewhere in the bible it was said the best, “Hate the sin, love the sinner.”

    In an age when culture is changing at the speed of light, we need to be tolerant of those who haven’t moved as fast as others.

    Progress is not a straight line, it curves and bends back on itself and launches off into dead-ends.

    What was tolerated then is not tolerated now. What we tolerate today will deeply offend people in the future.

    What we should be most intolerant of, is cancel culture. Not reading someone or not associating with someone because of something they said or did, sometimes decades ago – is the epitome of intolerance and future generations will back on us with scorn.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you, Almost Iowa! Very eloquently stated.

      When it comes to literature, I’m mostly in agreement with you. 🙂

      But when it comes to politicians, police officers, etc., their views can do great harm — sometimes leading to very harmful actions, including murder. In the case of people such as Trump and former Minneapolis cop Derek Chauvin, I not only hate the sin but hate the sinner. People like that have proven time and time again that they’re beyond redemption. (In the case of Chauvin, who of course is the man who killed George Floyd, he had many previous violations as a police officer.)


      • I have mentioned before that I spent ten years working for the Minneapolis Police, not a cop, but as an IT guy who built public safety systems.

        One of the projects I worked on was for the Minneapolis Civilian Review Board, the people who handled complaints about the police and in the course of my work was able to read those complaints.

        That was 30 years ago, but…

        HOLY CRAP!!

        For all that time, quite a few cops were well known as Thumpers, it what the cops call people like Derek Chauvin, who simply like to brutalize people.

        But nothing ever happened because the union protected them.

        So now it is all the rage to blame the union, especially the head of the union, Lt. Bob Kroll. (who was elected by a majority of the membership).

        A little more than a week ago, I heard Mayor Frey on NPR attributing the union and Kroll super-powers to defend criminal behavior.

        But who gave the union super-powers?

        Who agreed to the contract, knowing full well what was in it?

        The city council did and Frey sat on the council when that happened.

        The point of all of this is that Minneapolis is an one party town. The last Republican, Denny Schulstad, left the council thirty years ago and the present council consists of 12 very progressive Democrats and one Green…..who all agreed to the contract.

        As a side note, Amy Klobuchar serving as Hennepin County Prosecutor, refused to charge Derek Chauvin for brutalizing a citizen – because she didn’t want to get on the wrong side of the unions.

        Don’t get me wrong, I am not against civil service union – but I oppose their power to defend criminal behavior and it is not just the police who have that problem, we had housing inspectors extort sex from single mothers – and still keep their jobs.

        Sure, progressives can bash Trump and bash the Republicans but when they fail to muster the courage to do their job and protect the voters….well then, what is the use of being a progressive?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Thank you for the follow-up comment, Almost Iowa. I hear you.

          I’m a strong union supporter, but many police unions are appalling — protecting even their most brutal members, fighting legislation that would bring more accountability to bad cops, etc. And too many politicians — including Amy Klobuchar, who you mentioned — have indeed been intimidated by those police unions.

          I totally agree that many “establishment” Democratic politicians (along with most Republicans) have supported the police way too much and without question. Truly progressive Democrats like Bernie Sanders (of course an independent who aligns with the Dems), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, etc., have been much better. “Establishment” Dems include centrist types like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Amy Klobuchar (who you mentioned), Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, etc.


  13. I am sure I will like it. As you may have guessed I am very into books. I will get on Amazon.uk. today. AND I will prob later get a paperback for my Mr’s birthday. He is a great book guy . . I reckon it would be right up his street. You are right re Rowling. She has done good things. But alas she has now wandered into territory she should have stayed out of and people don’t remember the good things when you do. Behind the scenes most publishers tell you never to get ‘political’ and this is why.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thank you, Shehanne!

      I can definitely see from your comments and blog that you’re very much a book person — including being the author of a number of books. 🙂

      You’re absolutely right about most publishers not wanting their authors to get political, because it’s of course a risk that some readers will disagree. But some writers are better at it than others. One of the authors I follow on Twitter is Stephen King, who has posted some great tweets blasting Trump and other far-right Republicans in the U.S.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I actually think in some ways it is easier to declare yourself a follower of a certain party in some ways. After all it is expected we support something and that someone who does does not necessarily support every single policy etc. . People always seem to get far more bandwagony about issues of gender, homophobia, race, etc sometimes because they want to show how open minded they are which is why it wasn’t so smart of Rowling to tweet as she did. We all know in Scotland for example that she openly supports the Tory party and sends them donations etc and while many of us think…okaaaayyyyy… it’s never led to this backlash

        Liked by 2 people

  14. Yes, this is an important issue for readers of all ages and eras. I suppose our tolerance towards their intolerance is entirely subjective, depending on how much their work on balance means to the reader. For example, as a handicapped person, I felt one of Rowling’s scenes with Cormoran Strike beating it fast across a wet pavement while using his cane was totally out of touch with simple reality. Any person who walks gingerly with a cane knows that such a pavement is treacherously slippery. The cane slips out from you and down you go! I didn’t hold that insensitivity or failure to research an insult or bigotry, since after all, her protagonist is seriously handicapped!

    I’m very much opposed to group think and speak, no matter how serious the issue. There are always nuances within ideas and opinions. What Rowling addressed were matters of safety, common sense, and respect for the struggle to end sexual abuse, as well as feminist struggles to put women on equal footing with men in many areas. If we silence a largely sympathetic but different viewpoint, we run the risk of creating more polarization. We don’t need that. We need to listen with love and respect. There’s far too much tyranny and human rights’ abuses to add intolerance over agreed upon issues. People need to examine these things for themselves and ignore unsocial media! (Soap box…sorry, Dave)

    Liked by 3 people

    • Thank you, Mary Jo! VERY well said, and soapbox totally fine. 🙂

      You make a good point that J.K. Rowling’s stance — while one I disagree with — has some nuance and complexity and may have some sympathetic intent that, in her mind, fits with her worldview. She is clearly not a flaming bigot like Trump and his ilk.

      Rowling did indeed place Cormoran Strike in some unrealistic situations that would be especially noticeable to people who have disability issues. Fictional license/suspension of belief, of course, but it does sound like Rowling could have done a little more research. I must confess to being hooked on that series; I quickly devoured all four books after commenter Elena Pedigo recommended them here a year or two ago.

      Thanks again for your thoughts!

      Liked by 3 people

  15. I think there is a difference between writers’ of a different time stereotyping particular groups of people and more recent writers whose world view in their books is misogynistic or bigoted. When I was in grad school and I took my first fiction workshop with Professor X, I wanted to read his work so I would know what his writing was like, to give some context to his teaching. I read three of them, and then I couldn’t read any more. The world view that I was getting through those books was so distasteful, I did not want to stay in it a moment longer. [scene that finished me as a reader deleted]

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thank you, Liz. I hear you. There’s something about acting misogynistic or bigoted in recent decades that feels worse in a way than when people acted that way long ago.

      That professor you had sounds terrible; sorry you went through that offensive experience reading his books. 😦 Sounds like someone who didn’t belong in the teaching field, though of course professors like that are all over. My professor wife has worked with more than a few of those insufferable men.

      Liked by 2 people

  16. Asa Earl Carter, pen name Forrest Carter, apparently wrote a few books but I will never read another. After I read “The Education of Little Tree” that was supposed to be a semi-biographical tale about his life growing up with his Cherokee grandparents. After I found out the whole thing was a fanciful hoax, it sickened me. The book is charming, realistic, well-written, and incredibly sad, so much so that I sobbed at the end of it. Asa Earl Carter was a KKK member and very much a segregationist and white supremacist.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you, lulabelle! Wow — what a strange situation you skillfully describe with that well-done hoax perpetuated by a white supremacist. I agree that being a KKK member is a deal-breaker — sort of in the neighborhood of being a diehard Nazi. 😦


  17. What an interesting topic, Dave. You said that if you like an author you will keep reading him/her even if you don’t agree with their views. Same here. It would be a boring life for me if I only subscribed to those who share my own perceptions. How do you become or remain open-minded if you close yourself off like that? We see what that leads to every single day with Donald Trump & Co.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well said, Pat! Thank you!

      I guess there can be a tipping point — if an author says or writes some things that are truly vile (say, of a Trump-ish nature), there are always other authors to read. 🙂 But I totally agree that reading, and life in general, would be a lot less interesting if everyone just stayed in their “bubbles.”

      Liked by 1 person

  18. This is a very difficult one in many ways. You have actually covered many of the bases when you say there’s the ‘of their time’ bit to this and in that time certain awful prejudices were out in force.These authors may not even have questioned what they were writing. You also have the point about Rebecca in Ivanhoe. Another case in point would be Jessica in the Merchant of Venice, although equally it could be argued she does some questionable things. Are these acceptable because Shylock is Jewish, r because he’s not very nice? People can be pretty awful like Fagin or Shylock in any race, sexuality, or culture, so it is a very interesting subject. But these writers are much older examples. I think where Rowling has gone wrong is that she’s not. She’s also an author who is very much a celeb which may have led her to think it was fine to tweet her views. But the bottom line for me in this has been that she’s a writer, very popular of crime and also the Potter series and maybe she’d have been better just to stick to writing.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thank you for your comment, shehannemoore! Many great points — including the fact that some authors “back in the day” might not have even fully realized they were being intolerant. And, yes, different kinds of people can be awful even as there is awfulness tied to prejudice vs. awfulness that’s more general.

      I agree that J.K. Rowling’s views don’t have the same “of their time” excuse as long-ago writers do. Heck, Rowling is very much alive and still in her mid-50s. It could indeed be that she’s so rich and famous that she feels she can say almost anything, though her previous behavior has been pretty much exemplary. Heck, her opining about things outside her writing was usually on-point — until it wasn’t (with the hurtful transgender views she’s expressing).

      Liked by 3 people

      • Spot on. I feel she does think she’s so rich and famous the world is hanging on her words. All of them. Not just her written ones. But the way the world also is now, you do have be careful what you say online. She’s been hurtful then backpedaled with a lot of personal angst and stuff in a bid to claw it back. Obviously just because you’re a writer does not mean you can’t speak out or be controversial but I think that depends on what you are writing. Anyway, I see you are quite the busy person writing wise and I am already enjoying your blog so much I am going to get your book since I rather think I would enjoy that.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Thank you for the response! The thing with J.K. Rowling is she kind of earned her right to comment on things — starting as an impoverished single mother who went on to create an amazing fictional wizard world and then throw off literary typecasting by writing other excellent novels in different genres. But after using her podium for great things (such as her anti-Trump tweets), and giving away a good chunk of her fortune for charitable uses, she has now stumbled in the eyes of many — including me. As you wisely say, one needs to be careful online.

          I greatly appreciate your interest in my literary-trivia book; I hope you like it! 🙂

          Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s