Finally: What’s bugging me about Richard Armitage as Francis Dolarhyde

Hannibal_key_artI’ve had the Hannibal series 1 DVDs in my bag for — ten days now? And the book is here now, too. I keep looking at them and not opening them. I will. But staring at them for several days while avoiding opening them has definitely forced me to think more deeply about my problems with this project and the reasons I keep seesawing back and forth, in a way that’s bugging me — one minute cold to it; the next, intrigued.

(Yes, problems. I want to make clear at the outset, however, that they are and should remain my problems, certainly not Richard Armitage’s, and definitely not yours, either. I affirm that I can think of no legal or moral problems with Armitage having taken this role or people watching and appreciating him in it.)


I realized sometime this week that my objection to Hannibal did not lie in its violence alone or per se (although I certainly lack the practice in watching horror or violence that some people have, and I do object to some aestheticizations of violence I have seen, I have also watched a lot of video of historical atrocities over the years). It was something else.

It was raised when someone referred to somewhere to the Stieg Larsson novels, all of which I read rapidly when they were released in German translation (before the U.S. editions. Note to crime novel lovers — German is apparently the language into which any crime novel is most likely to be translated because the German predilection for this genre is huge and the market is wealthy). Contradiction much, Serv? Those novels also gave me bad dreams for a few nights after I read them. But I can’t deny the eagerness with which I turned their pages and recommended them to friends. (I haven’t seen any of the films, but I was the one responsible for corrupting Didion and she has seen them.) They were violent; indeed, according to at least one person familiar with them all (sorry, I’ve lost the place where you said this, whoever you were), much more violent than the Thomas Harris novel at the basis of the current adaptation of Hannibal.

Stieg-Larsson-verblendungSomething was different about those books. And I think this is it: it was that as often Lisbeth Salander was victimized, she still refused to let herself be a victim. Ever. Not a sweet revenge taker, like the ladies in 9 to 5, a movie that I loved as a girl, but someone who stood up for herself by initiating violence in respond to the brutal things she had been subjected to. A strong woman. A potential sociopath whom I admire.

It wasn’t sympathy — I’ve never been subjected to the kind of trauma that a Lisbeth Salander or for that matter, a Francis Dolarhyde was constituted as experiencing. As a straight white woman living in the West, I benefit from the public health, economic, military, educational, and cultural protections of a bubble not many people on the planet enjoy. My parents spanked with their hands and stopped when I was six, and while I had a life-changing experience with sexual harassment, I’ve been fortunate in that I have never been violently assaulted although so many women in the U.S. have. I’ve generally been immune to unusual blows of fate in general and the things that have made me suffer are pretty standard human troubles. Because of all of that privilege, I think, I’ve felt justified in building myself an even stronger bubble than a lot of people can against some things that trouble me and I have been reinforcing it in the last five years or so — the barrier against certain species of prejudice.

For instance, I simply delete — mercilessly, silently — people from my facebook page who spread material I judge homophobic or racist. I’ve read that liberals tend to tolerate less variety of political opinion in their social media. Although I don’t have that luxury because I have many close relatives who are dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, I do mute those who spread pseudo-scientific nonsense or conspiracy politics. I don’t have time for exasperation, I rationalize, and anger from reading things in my intimate sphere that already enrage me when I encounter them in public wastes my time and energy. To some extent, I can do this because of taste — I’d generally rather be reading, and I can be very selective about what I expose myself to by avoiding broadcast media. I listen to NPR in the morning (and the BBC), I haven’t had television since the planned end of analog broadcasting in the U.S. (I never got a converter or whatever was needed); I don’t have cable, am not a huge moviegover, don’t watch much video via the Internet, and so on. (Yes, I know, how strange that I’d become the fan of an actor, no? Didion did have to sort of coerce me to watch North & South the first time and my primary motivations were concern about her and the G&Ts she lured me with).

What does this have to do with not wanting to watch Hannibal? One of the biggest prejudices that I seek to protect myself from in my self-imposed media bubble is: misogyny. Now, let me be clear — I am not talking about sexism, which is a predictable outcome of a patriarchal society, and impossible to shut out unless one never picks up a book or leaves the house. Nor am I saying I have been able to insulate myself against sexual discrimination, which is a consequence of sexism. I wish. That I haven’t been assaulted is probably mostly luck. Other people in similar circumstances to mine have not been so lucky. By misogyny, I mean the generalized hate of women as women and the resentment toward women reflected as a cultural consequence of that attitude. Sometimes sexism is a consequence of misogyny, but I’m talking here not so much of a practice reflected in social arrangements and justified rationally, if mistakenly, on that basis, but rather about a general attitude, a layer of a particular worldview. If you’re a woman, you learn about misogyny at the latest when you start working for money outside the home. There are people who just hate women because they are women (and one learns very quickly that not all of them are men).

So why am I worried about Hannibal? Even before I read it? I think it’s because the mere term “serial killer” calls to mind the discourse around serial killers, which I’ve always felt is seriously misogynistic. Although the psychology research limits itself to saying that early family trauma is a factor in the development of many serial killers, it’s striking in the stories of the cases well known to me (Ed Gein — the bogeyman of every Wisconsin childhood in the 1970s; Jeffrey Dahmer — ditto in the 90s; Ted Bundy; John Wayne Gacy, and others more) how often the mother of the killer is made responsible specifically in the common mind, as if behaviors by fathers played no role at all or the mother was the only member of the family. Blame the woman, and especially, blame the powerful woman. What I’ve been told about the Francis Dolarhyde story so far does not differ substantially from this narrative (and it makes me wonder about what factors in the 80s and 90s, when these stories were particularly prominent in the news and fiction, contributed to audience enjoyment of that particular kind of story). It’s a hangover from the same kind of Freudianism (or pseudo-Freudianism) that made mothers responsible for autism only a generation ago. And given that women are excoriated for all kinds of behaviors that we praise men for, an unfair one. One of the aspects of the Larsson novels that also spoke to me: that in his accounts of the violence perpetrated on Salander over the years, Larsson was unafraid either to name or indict the men who abused his heroine both routinely and extraordinarily.

Screen shot 2015-02-07 at 9.03.07 PM[Left: Richard Armitage as Percy Courtenay in Miss Marie Lloyd. Source.]

Given how common the misogynist pattern is in the general discourse around serial killers, why am I so worried about Richard Armitage in this role? It’s not because I think he’s a misogynist himself, or at risk of becoming one — I’ve always been able to distinguish between Armitage the person and the roles he plays. Even as I wonder what Armitage the actor might be trying to work out for himself with the role of Francis Dolarhyde, I strongly doubt that it’s anything to do with the literal level of the role he’ll be playing.  Rather, I think it’s because, in contrast to most actors in the media that I do watch, Armitage has been one of the few men inside of my anti-misogyny bubble. He has chosen archetypal roles, which is sometimes a problem given our cultural patterns around women. But while he’s been a cad (Percy Courtenay, Tom Steele) and threatening more than once (Ian Macalwain, Lee Preston, Phillip Durrant), these were mostly minor roles, taken early in his career. The only major role he’s taken in which I see his character as a misogynist was Paul Andrews (and William Chatford, if you consider that a major role).

Admittedly, Servetus’ “big six” have sexist elements, and can indeed be extremely dark, if we think not just of Andrews, but also of Thorin’s gold sickness and Guy of Gisborne’s rage and madness in the third series of Robin Hood, of Lucas North/John Bateman’s torture over his past deeds, Porter’s PTSD, and Standring’s sudden discovery of his own capacity to harm in the third episode of Sparkhouse. Nonetheless, as a group, they are largely empty of any thoroughgoing hatred of women. John Standring doesn’t seem to have problems with women as such other than a paralyzing shyness that applies equally to men. Mr. Thornton loves his strong mother and his problems with Margaret are class-, not gender-based. Guy of Gisborne, whose treatment of women is typical for “his age,” killed Marian out of jealousy and humiliation, not because he hated women. This is a borderline case for me, because he hoarded a certain amount of anger at his mother that he was probably reliving throughout his frustrations with Marian, but based on his relations with other women in the series, including his sister, I would call him an egoist and a sexist more than a misogynist. Lucas North has fantastic working relationships with his female colleagues and for a soldier, John Porter is quite liberated. And the only women Thorin Oakenshield has anything to do with, I believe, in the huge “sausage fest” (not my term, but I find it amusing) of The Hobbit are Galadriel and Tauriel.

I don’t know if these choices have been accidental or purposeful with regard to avoiding misogyny. I tend to think that, although Armitage’s female co-stars have repeatedly praised his work and cooperation and support, that this pattern is more an accident than a plan. At the same time, it certainly makes sense for an actor whose fans are still primarily female not to choose a role that is blatantly sexist or misogynist. I don’t have the knowledge to parse out which factors are important for Armitage, although I wonder if the fact that Dolarhyde is more mainstream in term of the social stereotypes that constitute how we build a villian in our culture is a sign that he is loosing himself successfully from the presupposition that an Armitage fan is necessarily or incredibly likely to be a woman. And this isn’t a dealbreaker for me — I realized long ago that I would be likely to go almost anywhere with Richard Armitage in terms of roles, although I wasn’t excited about vampires. (I think snuff films were on my list of absolute noes, though.)

What “serial killer,” and Hannibal, draw me back to, however, is that atmosphere where powerful women are responsible for the mental illness of men who’d otherwise be normal. Men with a pathological gender confusion they owe to their moms. Just the terms alone draw me back into thoughts of a sea of misogyny that I try to avoid as much as possible, to insulate myself from. I don’t know yet if these retellings of the story will create that problem. But the general atmosphere of that kind of stuff makes me — unwilling. Reticent. Resistant, even. Willing to carry the DVDs around with me but not open the package and look at them.

So. I’ll try to watch an episode soon.

~ by Servetus on February 8, 2015.

31 Responses to “Finally: What’s bugging me about Richard Armitage as Francis Dolarhyde”

  1. Very interesting stuff, Serv!

    I read the book Red Dragon a long time ago (20+ years?) during a horror phase, probably coincided with the Silence of the Lambs movie. I also saw the Ed Norton/Ralph Fiennes movie at some point (CREEPY in a don’t watch it alone kind of way) but I recall that Fiennes did a great job with the role

    I am now more than halfway through season 1 of Hannibal and so far, it’s not a series I would stick with if RA weren’t joining the cast. That said, I don’t feel like the time spent watching it is wasted. I think I just prefer the format of a feature film, for this material, to the TV series procedural. And I still ship Clarice Starling and Scott Glenn from the movie after all these years.


    • Thanks for the comment. I don’t think that anything that makes us think involves a waste of time — my resistance to seeing certain things has more to do with the fact that I already know these things will make me angry and I don’t believe there’s any point in revisiting that. It can be productive to see something that refracts this material in a new way (even if one ultimately rejects it) just in order to see if there are other permutations of certain material that are non-objectionable.


  2. Thanks for sharing this! I had similar concerns when the series was new, but so far, I find that the show actually improves upon the portrayal of women in the books (IMHO, anyway! I know that’s probably blasphemy for some curative fans.) Alongside the women that are targeted, victimized, and damseled, you also have genderbent major characters and quite a few women with agency. I think the atmosphere is quite different.

    I’m also half-worried about what the show will do with Dolarhyde’s background–whether they’ll stick to the source material for it or stray, which they’ve done quite a number of times. Crossing my fingers!

    Eager to read what you think of the show once you’re a few eps in! 😀


    • I feel like it’s unfair to say these things before I’ve seen any of the series, but lately I’ve just decided when I’m blocked on something to say why. More spewing will be the result.

      A US broadcast network tv show where women ahve agency? Admittedly, it’s been something like 9 years since I’ve watched that medium, but I look forward to that.


      • I think it’s important to bring up why a piece of media repels you. And I avoided watching the series for quite a while, but I’m glad I got roped into it by the people around me. It’s not perfect or anything (I personally dislike the direction the story took with one of the important female characters on the show), but in terms of the dated psychological profiling from the source material and misogyny, I think the show’s been in the clear so far. Then again, we haven’t gotten to Dolarhyde’s story yet. Part of what makes me nervous about it is Bryan mentioning (I think it was in ComicCon) that they’re going to stick a bit more closely to the source material for him, but IDK if he meant just the character portrayal or his story elements. I guess we’ll see!

        Re: agency, my definition probably not very accurate, oops. But I personally think some of them do have it, as much as it’s allowed them within the framework of Hannibal’s story.


  3. I’m about 2/3 of the way through Red Dragon, and if they stick to the source material, there is definitely something for you to be worried about- Dolarhyde’s treatment as a boy, by both grandmother and mother, are frightening and sickening. However, I haven’t found the series Hannibal to be sexist or misogynistic. Keeping in mind that there are series spoilers in this article, here is a link you might find interesting, and might ease your mind to some degree about the series:


    • yeah — that post from WesternFan is a condensation of material that pointed in that direction (but that I didn’t want to publish in its entirety on blog).

      Thanks for the link — I will save it until I’ve watched at least a little of the series. Which i hope to do soon …


  4. I haven’t read the book but for what it’s worth, I don’t find the series mysogynistic. It is at times violent and disturbing but I really enjoyed it which I didn’t expect.


    • that’s good. I am somewhat concerned, though, that if they stick close to Dolarhyde’s back story they won’t be able to avoid it.


  5. Was Klein-Dolly angeht: Mutter hat ihn nach der Geburt im Stich gelassen, Großmutter nimmt ihn (im Alter von 5 Jahren, nach einer offensichtlich schlimmen Zeit in einem Waisenhaus) vor allem auf, um bösartig zu seiner Mutter zu sein. Vater und Großvater sind bereits verstorben.
    Red Dragon ist die Geschichte der Jagd nach dem Mörder, keine ausgefeilte Studie über Dolarhyde. Der Autor verwendet also schon eher Klischees, allerdings in einer Form, die ich glaubwürdig finde. Die Schuld an der Entwicklung wird nicht nur einer bestimmten Frau, der Großmutter, gegeben. – Wie der Roman auf dich wirkt, wirst du selbst feststellen müssen. Ich hoffe, dass er sich nicht nur wütend macht und nervt. 😉

    Kleine Bemerkung zum Thema TV: Du bist nicht so allein wie du vielleicht glaubst – ich gucke ausschließlich DVDs, kein Stream, kein normales Fernsehprogramm, gehe fast nie ins Kino. 😀

    Liked by 1 person

    • at some point there was just nothing I wanted to see anymore (sorry, Armitage, if you’re going to stick with US series tv I might relent)


  6. I’ve finished reading the book and I can’t say that I found the book or the character of Dolarhyde particularly misogynistic. Yes, the grandmother and the mother were loathsome as were others in his life, but it was more to do with the deformity — he would have been treated just as badly if he were female. His first tormentors were others. Dolarhyde didn’t to me seem misogynist at all, quite the opposite. I had the impression he chose his victims out of a weird sense of love, a sense of honouring them. I never really thought of the mother when I thought about real life serial killers, I guess I’ve just thought there is something fundamentally wrong with them and they were going to do what they were going to do regardless of their childhood. I’m interested in your thoughts on the book after you have read it. What will come first? The book or the DVD’s?


    • the point isn’t Dolarhyde’s attitudes — it’s the tendency of psychological research in the 70s / 80s / 90s to pin the responsibility for the mental illness of serial killers on cruel maternal figures in the killer’s background. E.g., in this book, the father is absent because dead — but no one blames Dolarhyde’s illness on that, apparently.


      • Darf ich auf ein paar Kleinigkeiten hinweisen?

        Es gibt (real und fiktiv) viel mehr männliche Serienmörder als weibliche.
        In Filmen und Romanen sind die (Haupt-)Opfer meistens Frauen.

        Da einen Zusammenhang zu sehen, liegt nahe, und diesen Zusammenhang in den beschränkten Möglichkeiten eines Films oder Romans zu thematisieren, ebenfalls. – Misogynie? Ich persönlich sehe das nicht so, kann den Eindruck aber nachvollziehen.

        Der Vollständigkeit halber: Dass es nie nur einen Grund gibt, ist ein anderes Thema, und dass die meisten Missbrauchsopfer nicht zum Mörder werden, sondern eher zu Depressionen, Selbstverletzung und ähnlichem neigen, ist bekannt.
        Das eignet sich aber nicht so gut für spannende Unterhaltung.


        • Yes, I’m aware that serial killing tends to be a male phenomenon, but that’ s not because women make men do it. My point is that insofar as environmental factors can be isolated as a pattern in the pasts of serial killers, and these include the person’s childhood, it’s the family dynamic that’s responsible. That’s something that is created by men as well as by women. This fact has been recognized and acknowledged in later research, but the fact that the research of the earlier period put the blame on women and not on men, and that authors who fictionalize this stuff picked up on that, is a response to a general cultural misogynism in the West. That we find that entertaining (why is it more entertaining when a woman is abusive than when a man is such? it’s not) is a sad statement about our society, and one that I try avoid dealing with, i.e., I create a bubble to keep this kind of generalized hate of my gender, because that is what it is, out of my life as much as possible.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Ich glaube, wir reden bis zu einem gewissen Punkt aneinander vorbei.

            Mich hat ein bisschen gestört, dass du geschrieben hast: “… no one blames Dolarhyde’s illness on [the absent father].”
            Das stimmt so nicht. Die Leserinnen, die sich bisher dazu geäußert haben, haben mehrheitlich gesagt, dass dem Kind eine positive Bezugsperson fehlt. Irgendeine, wohlgemerkt.
            Falls du das Buch inzwischen ganz gelesen hast, weißt du, dass Klein-Dolly sehr abgeschieden aufwuchs. Dass es Kinder nicht zu Verrückten macht, ohne Vater aufzuwachsen, ist bekannt (alleinerziehende Mütter gab es zu allen Zeiten). Dass ein Vater nicht automatisch eine positive fürsorgliche und liebevolle Bezugsperson ist, dürfte auch klar sein.
            Wenn wir uns darauf einigen können, dass in deinem Satz nicht der Vater, sondern “eine liebevolle Bezugsperson” stehen sollte, sind wir schon viel weiter. 😉

            Der Autor hat sich hier entschieden, die Großmutter als prägende Figur darzustellen. Ich glaube allerdings nicht, dass diese Entscheidung ausschließlich auf Vorurteilen basiert.
            Vielmehr denke ich, dass er die Beweggründe, warum Großmutter den Kleinen überhaupt aufnimmt, dahinterstehen. – Wie auch immer: Für irgendwen musste sich der Autor entscheiden, und es ergibt eine glaubwürdige Geschichte.

            <br />"That we find that entertaining (why is it more entertaining when a woman is abusive than when a man is such? it’s not) is a sad statement about our society, (...)"
            Missbrauch, in welcher Form auch immer, ist nie unterhaltsam. Das habe ich aber auch nicht gesagt. 

            Ich bin Frau, Serv, wie du auch. Über die alltägliche Herabsetzung der Frau in kleinen unwichtigen Dingen, über die man sich doch nun wirklich nicht aufregen muss, brauchen wir nicht zu diskutieren – “Was regt die sich über so’n Kleinkram so auf? Zickig, die Weiber! Vielleicht hat sie ihre Tage.”
            Ja, völlig normal. 😦


  7. Hmmm…I had never thought of serial killers and misogyny before, but now that you point it out I see it. It seems very much a media phenomenon — no research psychologist is saying that abuse by mothers induces men to rape/dehumanize/murder, but the motif is seen over and over again in crime shows and novels. There may be a few real-life cases, but the media portrayals are out of proportion. I hope Richard can avoid the misogyny, but if he can’t, I hope he gives a nuanced and complex portrayal of a misogynistic person.

    I hope I’m not out of bounds in sharing my own problem with this role. To put it simply, I’m really bothered by the way the media/crime shows portray mental illness. I really hate how most portrayals of people with mental illness either have “superhuman” abilities (clairvoyance-like intuition, very high IQ, very high functioning), are fantastical killers, or have simplistic Freudian issues (oral fixations and Oedipus complexes…really? Such outdated and unsupported ideas >.<). I hate how mentally ill people are seen as dangerous and how media contributes to that misconception. When I read wiki articles on Hannibal and Dolarhyde, I ranted at my laptop screen because I was so bothered by the construction of their characters. I really really don’t want Richard to affirm the generic “monstrous mentally ill killer” stereotype.

    That said, this is my problem, and I understand that others may feel differently. I make no moral judgment on those who disagree with me, Richard, and any fan of Hannibal or any other crime show.


    • I find in my own job, nowadays, that so many students come in with the desire to be forensic profilers — honestly, the number of students I see who want that career would probably outnumber the count of actual serial killers (who are very rare) by multiple dozens.

      I know what you mean about mental illness. And having read the first thirty or forty pages of the book, now, you are totally justified in being concerned.


  8. Un point de vue très intéressant. Particulièrement en comparant avec le personnage de Lisbeth Salander .S.Larsson,à l’instar de beaucoup d’écrivains scandinaves – en particulier, dans le domaine du roman policier/thriller – a une vision vraiment différente qui change agréablment des stéréotypes auxquels on a affaire.
    Je n’ai pas vu “Hannibal” (la série) et j’ignore si j’en aurais l’occasion.
    Je crois que c’est comme pour les films/séries “de vampires” ^^ , j’ai eu ma dose de serial killers, à un moment…..


    • I think there must be something about female roles in Scandinavian society — it makes the portrayals of women in those crime novels often really interesting to read. Larsson isn’t the only author with whom I have experienced that but he’s a good example.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Lisbeth Salander hat mir als Charakter unglaublich gut gefallen, ihr passiert so unglaublich viel, aber sie lässt sich nicht unterkriegen. Sie entwickelt nach den Traumata in der Kindheit (und später) zwar eine schwierige Persönlichkeit, bleibt sich selbst aber treu und geht straight ihren Weg, sie weiß genau wo ihre Probleme begründet sind (bei ihrem VAter) und überträgt diesen Hass nicht.
    Man merkt im Buch, wie viel Sympathie Larsson für diese Figur hatte. Den 2. und 3. Band habe ich hauptsächlich gelesen, weil ich wissen wollte wie ihre Geschichte weiter geht.
    Dolarhyde ist für mich das krasse Gegenteil, wie eine zerstörte Kindheit einen zerstörten Menschen hervorbringt, der seinen Hass auch auf Menschen überträgt, die mit seinem “Unglück” nichts zu tun haben. Für diesen Charakter kann ich keine Sympathie empfinden egalwie schwierig die Kindheit war. Das macht für mich die Entscheidung so schwierig – die Serie schauen oder nicht? Ohne RA würde ich sie nicht schauen, ich finde sie zu brutal.
    Ich möchte erst abwarten was die Produzenten aus der Rolle machen (wird auf allen Foren zu finden sein) bevor ich entscheide die Staffel mit RA zu schauen oder ggf. auch nicht……. 😉


    • ich fand wirklich gut, daß sie ihre Rache nur auf den Verantwortlichen nimmt — ansonsten hält sie sich zusammen und schadet niemanden. Das ist aber auch vielleicht meinerseits eine Fantasie, mich über bestimmte Situation rachen zu können.

      Yeah, there is definitely NO way I’d even be considering this if Armitage were not involved.


  10. If anyone’s spoiler sensitive, better skip this comment.

    I’ve just re-read Red Dragon, and I think your concerns over misogyny are justified with regard to the first two murders FD commits. But then he meets Reba, and starts a real and touching relationship. He struggles against the Red Dragon persona and the need to kill. This was the part that convinced me RA would do a fantastic job.
    There are a lot of potential pitfalls though. In addition to misogyny and the portrayal of mental illness, I would be concerned over the portrayal of someone with a facial deformity and speech defect. It would be wrong to demonise people who already face a lot of prejudice from society. I hope they handle it very carefully. It could succeed – in addition to being visually stunning, the series so far has been well written.


    • Ah, you’re right! I overlooked the facial deformity and speech defect part. I think Richard will pay a lot of attention to the voice, since he discusses crafting the “voice” for the characters he plays. I hope it comes off as authentic and not a caricature.

      While I care a lot about what Richard thinks and does for this role, I think that the handling of these potential pitfalls is not just up to him. Even if he tries his best to handle these issues carefully, the editing/music/work of many other people will go into the final product.


      • Yes — this has sort of been a problem all along in reading what he’s doing. How much of what his characters are doing is his responsible for? He tried to get involved in Spooks to the extent that the writers sort of humorously complained about him in series 7, and he spent a lot of time talking to them in RH. I hope he does that here, too, but we’ll never know really how much, and he’s always been too responsible / professional to say himself.


  11. Thanks to everyone. Comments are now closed on this post.


  12. […] apparently wanted to slap us in the gut with: that Graham, too, has murderous impulses. I found the circumstances of Dolarhyde’s childhood both not entirely credible and just as I had feared…. When the stuff with Reba started, I also found that plotline not entirely successful. A blind […]


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

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

%d bloggers like this: