Overall, I really enjoyed Professor Maruca's class on media in the eighteenth century. Even though I was very resistant and pessimistic about the class in the beginning, I feel I learned a lot and not only filled in a huge gap in my literary knowledge base, but I also enjoyed the books and topics we discussed. One could even say that I enjoy and have a greater appreciation for British literature than I did when I started the class this winter, pissed off that I had to take it in the first place. I wish we would have had more time to indulge in topics and really explore the function of these different forms at this time, but I guess now I have a good base and starting point to indulge in these topics in the future.
And even though I HATED the idea of having to blog in the begining of the semester, this ended up being a really enjoyable way to express ideas while incorporating the ideals of modern media to parallel 18th Century media and the newness of it.
Thanks Professor Maruca!
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Early Modern Conference #2
The second one was by Jamie Goodrich, an associate professor here at Wayne State University, titled "Thomas More's 'englishe Tongue': Mary Bassett and the Politics of Sainthood." Goodrich basically talked about how Mary Bassett, Thomas More's granddaughter used her writing to authenticate More's reputation as a martyr, but her writing ended up functioning in two ways. She translated his works that he wrote before he was executed, but added her own authorial voice to them in the footnotes. This work was evidence of women's subordinate role in patriarchal society, but her "free translation" of some parts where she not only adds her own interpretation but leads her reader to it in the footnotes shows an attempt by Bassett to claim her own authorial voice in the process.
This reminded me a little bit of Burney's way of adopting Richardson's model to form her own text. Pamela and Evelina are vey similar in content and moral message. This is only one of many examples in the eighteenth century of a woman author's need to have a male author authenticate her text. in Bassett's case it is the reverse becuase she uses the male text to authenticate her own voice by slipping it in in ways that draw attention to the text. This was smart on her part becuase she accomplished two things at once: she reinforced her grandfather's reputation and created one for herself. It worked becuase as Goodrich points out, it is Bassett's version that they use in the TV show Tudors during Thomas More's near execution scene. The show also elaborates More's scene more than the other important Catholic martyr that was executed too (starts with an F....) becuase of Bassett's influence.
It is very interesting to look at the creative ways in which women authenticated themselves as authorial voices to break free from the silence that was expected of them...
This reminded me a little bit of Burney's way of adopting Richardson's model to form her own text. Pamela and Evelina are vey similar in content and moral message. This is only one of many examples in the eighteenth century of a woman author's need to have a male author authenticate her text. in Bassett's case it is the reverse becuase she uses the male text to authenticate her own voice by slipping it in in ways that draw attention to the text. This was smart on her part becuase she accomplished two things at once: she reinforced her grandfather's reputation and created one for herself. It worked becuase as Goodrich points out, it is Bassett's version that they use in the TV show Tudors during Thomas More's near execution scene. The show also elaborates More's scene more than the other important Catholic martyr that was executed too (starts with an F....) becuase of Bassett's influence.
It is very interesting to look at the creative ways in which women authenticated themselves as authorial voices to break free from the silence that was expected of them...
Early Modern Conference #1
In Susannah Brietz Monta's talk "Catholic Women and Pious Patronage in Reformation England," Monta mainly focuses on the life of Anne Howard, a devout Catholic woman stuck in the confines of Protestant England. She talked a lot about Howard's influence on confessional culture and works related to it. She also talked a lot about the actual printing process of these Catholic texts and how they were often hidden within other texts to disguise them during a time of great religious division.
One thing I found very interesting or compelling in Monta's talk was the "conduct manual" that was created by Southwell for Anne Howard title The Short Rule for a Good Life.
(This only gives the table of contents and the look at a few pages, but it gives you an idea of what the book was about and looked like)
This book was an attempt to reach the Catholic community during a time when it was hard to stay pious and with one's faith because people were being persecuted for their beliefs. The Short Rule linked the domestic sphere and Catholic duty, placing women in charge of the moral upbringing of the household. It was written to instill a sense of Catholic duty into women in their sphere, the home, and help establish a collective Catholic community. It was well known, even published in Protestant form where it was "masculinized," loosing its appeal to the woman in the domestic space and changing the audience the book addressed.
This was interesting to me because we saw in our readings that women were expected to uphold the morals in the household and not only teach and know them, but live by them. Many of the conduct manuals were also geared toward women and focused largely on the domestic sphere (as depicted in the conduct excerpt that is in the back of Evelina). This was the only space women had any power, and even there the power was limited. What I got out of the lecture is that Anne Howard was and strove to be a very active Catholic, yearning to change the oppressive views of England, but in a way was politely told by Southwell through the publication of The Short Rules to stay in her space where she belonged and could still be a devout Catholic. The books that were supposed to help women actually hurt them by reinforcing rules that kept women subordinate, especially when it came to writing (think back to the reception of women authors that we talked about in class in equating being to forward with their work as eqaul with a prostitute). Howard had to stay "silent, but for the word," being urged to live a dutiful Catholic life at home while Southwell and others took care of everything else. The "conduct book" seems almost like a diversion tactic to put the woman back in her place....
And here's a little glimpse into Anne Howard's writing, which Monta did not really talk about (and would have been cool if she did...but she put her email address (smonta@nd.edu) so anyone can contact her with questions and the like):
"In sad and ashy weeds"
Anne Dacres Howard, Countess of Arundel (1557-1630)
In sad and ashy weeds
I sigh, I groan, I pine, I mourn;
My oaten yellow reed
I all to jet and ebon turn.
My wat'ry eyes
Like winter's skies,
My furrowed cheeks o'erflow.
All heav'ns know why
Men mourn as I,
And who can blame my woe?
In sable robes of night
My days of joy consumed be;
My sorrow sees no light;
My lights through sorrow nothing see:
For now my sun
His course hath run,
And from his sphere doth go,
To endless bed
Of souldered lead,
And who can blame my woe?
My flocks I now forsake,
That so my sheep my grief may know;
The lilies loath to take
That since his death presumed to grow.
I envy air
Becuase it dare
Still breathe, and he not so;
Hate earth, that doth
Entomb his youth,
And who can blame my woe?
One thing I found very interesting or compelling in Monta's talk was the "conduct manual" that was created by Southwell for Anne Howard title The Short Rule for a Good Life.
(This only gives the table of contents and the look at a few pages, but it gives you an idea of what the book was about and looked like)
This book was an attempt to reach the Catholic community during a time when it was hard to stay pious and with one's faith because people were being persecuted for their beliefs. The Short Rule linked the domestic sphere and Catholic duty, placing women in charge of the moral upbringing of the household. It was written to instill a sense of Catholic duty into women in their sphere, the home, and help establish a collective Catholic community. It was well known, even published in Protestant form where it was "masculinized," loosing its appeal to the woman in the domestic space and changing the audience the book addressed.
This was interesting to me because we saw in our readings that women were expected to uphold the morals in the household and not only teach and know them, but live by them. Many of the conduct manuals were also geared toward women and focused largely on the domestic sphere (as depicted in the conduct excerpt that is in the back of Evelina). This was the only space women had any power, and even there the power was limited. What I got out of the lecture is that Anne Howard was and strove to be a very active Catholic, yearning to change the oppressive views of England, but in a way was politely told by Southwell through the publication of The Short Rules to stay in her space where she belonged and could still be a devout Catholic. The books that were supposed to help women actually hurt them by reinforcing rules that kept women subordinate, especially when it came to writing (think back to the reception of women authors that we talked about in class in equating being to forward with their work as eqaul with a prostitute). Howard had to stay "silent, but for the word," being urged to live a dutiful Catholic life at home while Southwell and others took care of everything else. The "conduct book" seems almost like a diversion tactic to put the woman back in her place....
And here's a little glimpse into Anne Howard's writing, which Monta did not really talk about (and would have been cool if she did...but she put her email address (smonta@nd.edu) so anyone can contact her with questions and the like):
"In sad and ashy weeds"
Anne Dacres Howard, Countess of Arundel (1557-1630)
In sad and ashy weeds
I sigh, I groan, I pine, I mourn;
My oaten yellow reed
I all to jet and ebon turn.
My wat'ry eyes
Like winter's skies,
My furrowed cheeks o'erflow.
All heav'ns know why
Men mourn as I,
And who can blame my woe?
In sable robes of night
My days of joy consumed be;
My sorrow sees no light;
My lights through sorrow nothing see:
For now my sun
His course hath run,
And from his sphere doth go,
To endless bed
Of souldered lead,
And who can blame my woe?
My flocks I now forsake,
That so my sheep my grief may know;
The lilies loath to take
That since his death presumed to grow.
I envy air
Becuase it dare
Still breathe, and he not so;
Hate earth, that doth
Entomb his youth,
And who can blame my woe?
Friday, April 24, 2009
Northanger Abbey...Finally...
I've been thinking about the section on novels that Jane Austen writes about on page 22. I started thinking about what she is saying here before we talked about it in class and it has been running through ever since. We mentioned that she is really advocating for the novel writer at this point, but we really didn't get into to what degree. One thing we did not get into was Austin's mention of the actual labor/production of novel writing. "There seems almost a general wish of decrying the capacity and undervaluing the labor of the novelist, and of slighting the performances which have only genius, wit, and taste to recommend them" (22). This continues on the next page with the public reception of the labor and content. Austin is pointing out the fact that many people looked past and/or didn't realize the deeper level of novels, or if they did, it was often a misinterpretation (much like Pamela or what Burney feared in Evelina), pointing out its flaw rather than seeing the social commentary or deep analysis of culture and people. Austin is very explicit here and compares novel reading to reading more acceptable texts like the Spectator. What makes Austin mad here is that people recognize the Spectator as a good text because of its analysis of culture and contributions to bettering it, but do not realize that novels functioned in the same way, taking a more creative approach than the essay form. There was a reluctance to let some novels transcend, and it seems like these novels were usually written by women. So this leads me to a few questions....
1) Is the value of the labor of the novel linked only to gender? (thus being undervalued and unrecognized)
2) Is the content of the novel undervalued because women don't have the capacity or formal educational background to write on worthy subjects? (I was actually reading about this in a book recently, but can't remember the title off the top of my head. Almost used it in one of my 5 theses I had...)
3) Why are novels and newspapers always misread, but usually not anything else?
It seems to me that one and two are almost inseparable...and thus lead to #3...and Austin anticipates this through her open comments to the reader that highlight her thought process and calculation behind the things she chooses in this book. She wants the reader to value her labor and recognize that everything is not just haphazardly thrown together, but that there is the same calculated analysis behind a novel as there is a Spectator essay. This is evident in all of the examples of Austin addressing the reader we talked about Thurs (168, 172-173...others I can't find right now...). SO this leads me back to my questions...Why should she have to do this? Why is the labor of novelists undervalued...?
1) Is the value of the labor of the novel linked only to gender? (thus being undervalued and unrecognized)
2) Is the content of the novel undervalued because women don't have the capacity or formal educational background to write on worthy subjects? (I was actually reading about this in a book recently, but can't remember the title off the top of my head. Almost used it in one of my 5 theses I had...)
3) Why are novels and newspapers always misread, but usually not anything else?
It seems to me that one and two are almost inseparable...and thus lead to #3...and Austin anticipates this through her open comments to the reader that highlight her thought process and calculation behind the things she chooses in this book. She wants the reader to value her labor and recognize that everything is not just haphazardly thrown together, but that there is the same calculated analysis behind a novel as there is a Spectator essay. This is evident in all of the examples of Austin addressing the reader we talked about Thurs (168, 172-173...others I can't find right now...). SO this leads me back to my questions...Why should she have to do this? Why is the labor of novelists undervalued...?
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Busy busy busy....
Due to an overwhelming work schedule, I have not had time to reflect on anything....blogs/responses on Northanger Abbey and the very interesting talks I heard last Friday will be on here tomorrow! I hope it sparks some thoughts/discussions. Check back tomorrow!
Saturday, April 18, 2009
A Refelction on Academic Conferences....
I've been to a few academic conferences now, presented in a mock one, and am presenting in one for writing centers this fall, so I'm trying to figure out the "proper way" to present at these things.
One thing i noticed at the early modern one on Friday is that some of the speakers spoke really fast. It was hard for me to follow sometimes because of that. I know this is something I often do and need to prepare myself for so that my listeners can understand what I am saying and actually take something away from it.
Another thing is that the material is often really dense, all because it is based on continuing research and literally entering into and academic conversation that is already going on. This can be very intimidating for students and colleagues who are not familiar with the material but want to learn more. But how do you balance the two without dumbing down your argument too much that it loses its relevance??? I found this to be problematic for myself and my fellow classmates when we did our mock academic conference.
It is also really hard for people who have a hard time with auditory learning and focus. I like the use of handouts for long quotes and stuff like that, but why not include the argument and the main points as well as a sort of outline to help the audience follow what you are saying? I often got lost in the argument and couldn't retrace back becuase I had no text in front of me to go back to. Iunderstand this is what the question and answer session afterwads is for, but I would feel kind of silly asking "hey, what was your argument again?" So how do you address this area of concern? I'm sure I'm not the only one that has experienced this. Many times the person/people presenting will have their book present or information on where to get the article that is published/in the process of getting published, but why not make the talk itself more productive? Maybe its just me. I'm curious to know how others feel about this and, to professor maruca specifically, how do you or would you address these concerns?
I am really thinking about this kind of stuff becuase I am becoming more and more involved in the realm of academia and want to know the proper conduct for presenting and interacting with the audience in a way that increases their understanding. I feel that the purpose of these conferences is to spread knowledge not only to those specifically interested in the area of study, but to others as well. There might be moore support and turn out for these things (especially by students) if it was less intimidating for them to participate.
These are just some of my thoughts on the academic conference. please share your ideas and experiences!
One thing i noticed at the early modern one on Friday is that some of the speakers spoke really fast. It was hard for me to follow sometimes because of that. I know this is something I often do and need to prepare myself for so that my listeners can understand what I am saying and actually take something away from it.
Another thing is that the material is often really dense, all because it is based on continuing research and literally entering into and academic conversation that is already going on. This can be very intimidating for students and colleagues who are not familiar with the material but want to learn more. But how do you balance the two without dumbing down your argument too much that it loses its relevance??? I found this to be problematic for myself and my fellow classmates when we did our mock academic conference.
It is also really hard for people who have a hard time with auditory learning and focus. I like the use of handouts for long quotes and stuff like that, but why not include the argument and the main points as well as a sort of outline to help the audience follow what you are saying? I often got lost in the argument and couldn't retrace back becuase I had no text in front of me to go back to. Iunderstand this is what the question and answer session afterwads is for, but I would feel kind of silly asking "hey, what was your argument again?" So how do you address this area of concern? I'm sure I'm not the only one that has experienced this. Many times the person/people presenting will have their book present or information on where to get the article that is published/in the process of getting published, but why not make the talk itself more productive? Maybe its just me. I'm curious to know how others feel about this and, to professor maruca specifically, how do you or would you address these concerns?
I am really thinking about this kind of stuff becuase I am becoming more and more involved in the realm of academia and want to know the proper conduct for presenting and interacting with the audience in a way that increases their understanding. I feel that the purpose of these conferences is to spread knowledge not only to those specifically interested in the area of study, but to others as well. There might be moore support and turn out for these things (especially by students) if it was less intimidating for them to participate.
These are just some of my thoughts on the academic conference. please share your ideas and experiences!
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
PLEASE SUPPORT THE MICHIGAN EPILEPSY FOUNDATION!!!!
Support the Michigan Epilepsy Foundation by participating in the walk at the Detroit Zoo or by sponsoring me through donations. All proceeds go to helping those with seizures live better lives. For more information, to make a donation, or to join Team Joeymon, please visit my website!
Monday, April 13, 2009
What if I don't want to???
Enough about Arabella! She's pretty tiresome anyways...and there is a reason for her character as a few have often pointed out in their blogs; she always has her head stuck in a book and uses them as a guide to live her life.
"For Heaven's sake, Cousin, how have you spent your time; and to what Studies have you devoted all your Hours, that you could find none to spare for the Perusal of Books from which all useful Knowledge may be drawn; which give us the most shining examples of Generosity, Courage, Virtue, and Love; which regulate our actions, form our Manners, and inspire us with a noble Desire of emulating those great, heroic, and virtuous Actions, which made those Persons so glorious in their Age, and so worthy imitation in ours? However, as it is never too late to improve, suffer me to recommend to you the reading of these Books, which will soon make you discover the Improprieties you have been guilty of; and will, probably, induce you to avoid them for the future" (48-49).
But the problem with this is that the books are not always such a good thing for Arabella because she takes them way too literally (which is why she is called the female quixote...). But this is only part of what is going on. Lennox is sharing more with the reader than just the story of some girl who takes books literally. At the beginning of each chapter, Lennox provides the reader with little epigraphs that tell the reader how they ought to read that chapter or respond to it. There are times that it seems more neutral to rebel against these prescribed readings and interpret it in your own way. Lennox seems to use these to prevent the very things that happen to Arabella because of her reading by showing a reader how they should read a text and what moralistic implications and real guides to life a reader should take from the novels instead for the grandiose ideas like Arabella's. This is similar to the way in which Richardson responded to Pamela, demanding one, and only one reading of it, suggesting that reading it in any way but its moral form was almost like desecrating the text. This really seems to reduce their function though because, as I mentioned before, sometimes the way Lennox suggests to read the chapter is not the way to read it at all, or at least not the way you're inclined to read it. So what is this saying about the text and about reading novels??? And what about the irony about writing a novel that is against novels???
On another note, this issue with novel readings is important, especially when it comes to "ruining" women. If one reads Pamela in the Shamela or Anti-Pamela way, one could argue that her decline in morals was due to her extensive reading of novels. Another way to look at it (from the scribbling women's perspective), she could have made up all of these stories in her letters based on the heroes and heroines she read about in her books. Book reading is mentioned a lot in Pamela, especially in the beginning. Either way, books can be blamed for her shortcomings and departure from her virtuous ways and her overactive imagination.
Soooooooooooo are novels the root of all evil??? It sure seems to be that way...
"For Heaven's sake, Cousin, how have you spent your time; and to what Studies have you devoted all your Hours, that you could find none to spare for the Perusal of Books from which all useful Knowledge may be drawn; which give us the most shining examples of Generosity, Courage, Virtue, and Love; which regulate our actions, form our Manners, and inspire us with a noble Desire of emulating those great, heroic, and virtuous Actions, which made those Persons so glorious in their Age, and so worthy imitation in ours? However, as it is never too late to improve, suffer me to recommend to you the reading of these Books, which will soon make you discover the Improprieties you have been guilty of; and will, probably, induce you to avoid them for the future" (48-49).
But the problem with this is that the books are not always such a good thing for Arabella because she takes them way too literally (which is why she is called the female quixote...). But this is only part of what is going on. Lennox is sharing more with the reader than just the story of some girl who takes books literally. At the beginning of each chapter, Lennox provides the reader with little epigraphs that tell the reader how they ought to read that chapter or respond to it. There are times that it seems more neutral to rebel against these prescribed readings and interpret it in your own way. Lennox seems to use these to prevent the very things that happen to Arabella because of her reading by showing a reader how they should read a text and what moralistic implications and real guides to life a reader should take from the novels instead for the grandiose ideas like Arabella's. This is similar to the way in which Richardson responded to Pamela, demanding one, and only one reading of it, suggesting that reading it in any way but its moral form was almost like desecrating the text. This really seems to reduce their function though because, as I mentioned before, sometimes the way Lennox suggests to read the chapter is not the way to read it at all, or at least not the way you're inclined to read it. So what is this saying about the text and about reading novels??? And what about the irony about writing a novel that is against novels???
On another note, this issue with novel readings is important, especially when it comes to "ruining" women. If one reads Pamela in the Shamela or Anti-Pamela way, one could argue that her decline in morals was due to her extensive reading of novels. Another way to look at it (from the scribbling women's perspective), she could have made up all of these stories in her letters based on the heroes and heroines she read about in her books. Book reading is mentioned a lot in Pamela, especially in the beginning. Either way, books can be blamed for her shortcomings and departure from her virtuous ways and her overactive imagination.
Soooooooooooo are novels the root of all evil??? It sure seems to be that way...
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
And of course, a happy ending....
Evelina and Lord Orville ride off into the sunset, and they all lived happily every after...
This is how I feel the story really should have ended. I was really confused by the end because I was expecting a completely different ending from the criticism I read for my presentation last week. In Campbell's article, she makes it seem like Lord Orville's declaration of his love is one of friendship, not one of marriage. After I finished Evelina, I was a little shocked and misled because of Campbell's interpretation and presentation of the text. So what do you do when a critical essay misrepresents a text and downplays the contents to fit the argument??? Campbell argues that Orville empowers Evelina, looks at her as a friend, and elevates her to his superior when his trial of mosreading her conduct are over (449-450). But doesn't marriage kind of undo that argument? Does Orville only profess his love becuase of her good conduct and nature, or is it in part to do with her status? Whether her father recognizes her or not, Orville knows the story and knows that she has good relations and good company that suggest her status. And better yet, the marriage is arranged! Evelina is told she is going to be married to Lord Orville. Is this something that really empowers Evelina??? And is it something that only recognizes her virtuous nature? Campbell argues that Orville notices moments, especially in her meeting Macartney and Sir Willoughby, where Evelina's virtue may be questioned, calling him a bad reader becuase he is judging the actions out of context. She says further that these are moments where Evelina cannot explain herself and her silence ends up hurting her (further saying that a woman's silence is the ultimate threat to her reputation, including in publishing). But because Orville realizes this is not true and protects Evelina from the evil forces of Sir Willoughby, he becomes her friend and protector and is redeemed as a good reader (which would parallel the argument I talked about on Thurs that Burney was seeking protection from male critics to see her work as virtuous and not misread moments that are innocent). Campbell never mentions the marriage though...and this is important becuase one can argue that Orville did all of this becuase he really liked Evelina (as is indicated throughout the text from the moment he met her) and wanted to keep her safe for that reason. Her virtue plays a role, but there are other reasons for their match in the end, especially Sir Belmont's intervention. To me it seems that by omitting the fact that they are to get married and only refering to their friendly love for eachother, Campbell is protecting herself from critics that would break down her use or Orville as a reader of Evelina and say taht it may not be as reliable of a reference as it seems if this information is included. If anyone has a chance to read the article (its pretty short) and can help me work this out, that would be awesome!
And one more thing, what is with the monkey at the end??? Can somebody please help me out with this. It seems so out of place and ridiculous, but important becuase of that. Dr. Maruca, I think anyone who can answer that deserves some extra credit!
This is how I feel the story really should have ended. I was really confused by the end because I was expecting a completely different ending from the criticism I read for my presentation last week. In Campbell's article, she makes it seem like Lord Orville's declaration of his love is one of friendship, not one of marriage. After I finished Evelina, I was a little shocked and misled because of Campbell's interpretation and presentation of the text. So what do you do when a critical essay misrepresents a text and downplays the contents to fit the argument??? Campbell argues that Orville empowers Evelina, looks at her as a friend, and elevates her to his superior when his trial of mosreading her conduct are over (449-450). But doesn't marriage kind of undo that argument? Does Orville only profess his love becuase of her good conduct and nature, or is it in part to do with her status? Whether her father recognizes her or not, Orville knows the story and knows that she has good relations and good company that suggest her status. And better yet, the marriage is arranged! Evelina is told she is going to be married to Lord Orville. Is this something that really empowers Evelina??? And is it something that only recognizes her virtuous nature? Campbell argues that Orville notices moments, especially in her meeting Macartney and Sir Willoughby, where Evelina's virtue may be questioned, calling him a bad reader becuase he is judging the actions out of context. She says further that these are moments where Evelina cannot explain herself and her silence ends up hurting her (further saying that a woman's silence is the ultimate threat to her reputation, including in publishing). But because Orville realizes this is not true and protects Evelina from the evil forces of Sir Willoughby, he becomes her friend and protector and is redeemed as a good reader (which would parallel the argument I talked about on Thurs that Burney was seeking protection from male critics to see her work as virtuous and not misread moments that are innocent). Campbell never mentions the marriage though...and this is important becuase one can argue that Orville did all of this becuase he really liked Evelina (as is indicated throughout the text from the moment he met her) and wanted to keep her safe for that reason. Her virtue plays a role, but there are other reasons for their match in the end, especially Sir Belmont's intervention. To me it seems that by omitting the fact that they are to get married and only refering to their friendly love for eachother, Campbell is protecting herself from critics that would break down her use or Orville as a reader of Evelina and say taht it may not be as reliable of a reference as it seems if this information is included. If anyone has a chance to read the article (its pretty short) and can help me work this out, that would be awesome!
And one more thing, what is with the monkey at the end??? Can somebody please help me out with this. It seems so out of place and ridiculous, but important becuase of that. Dr. Maruca, I think anyone who can answer that deserves some extra credit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
