"Ender's Game" movie faces a boycott

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/07/orson-scott-card-boycott/

by smoyer • 13 years ago

49 109 13 years ago

steve19• 13 years ago

I wonder if the people signing this would also boycott anything run or owned by Middle Eastern royalty where laws that Card promotes both exist and are enforced.

_b8r02• 13 years ago

Of course not, it's much easier to feel self-righteous boycotting one of the greatest living science fiction authors than boycotting the oil that funds this sort of thing.

Gay marriage is legal in the US, and rightly so. Neither Orson Scott Card nor middle-eastern oil will change that.

srl• 13 years ago

While I agree with the sentiment, gay marriage is not legal in most of the US.

anu_gupta• 13 years ago

one of the greatest living science fiction authors

Oh please. Ender's Game is a classic. The rest of his work is worse, and the recent Shadow stuff is execrable.

theorique3• 13 years ago

You can't self-righteously BitTorrent oil, so I would say probably not.

(On the other hand, American natural gas and Canadian tar sands may break us free from dependence on the Saudis and their deplorable political and social system.)

arethuza• 13 years ago

I just finished a rather excellent (if slightly depressing) book on the links between the US government and Saudi Arabia that suggests those links are rather deeper than you might suspect:

http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil-Washington-Saudi-Crude/...

[NB: From what I can tell the author, Bob Baer, is fairly credible - he is a former CIA field officer with a lot of experience in the Middle East.]

smoyer• 13 years ago

Card is a Mormon and I have no problem with his belief that homosexual behaviors are wrong. Tolerance is different from belief though and if he doesn't practice tolerance, why should he expect people to tolerate his religion-based beliefs?

One problem I see is that so many times, beliefs are also linked to hatred. There's really no place for hatred when two parties are trying to practice tolerance.

Symmetry• 13 years ago

There's a big difference between saying "Gay marriage is bad and people who support it should feel bad" and "A government which allows gay marriage must be overthrown by any means necessary." The former I can ignore, the later not so much.

ideonexus• 13 years ago

You've never gotten one of these emails?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/saudigas.asp

People boycott in America for political reasons all the time. I don't particularly care about this boycott, but I'm not going to ridicule them for exercising their right to free association. If they don't want their money going to a bigot, that's their prerogative. If a person wants to boycott Chick Filet because of their stance on gay marriage, Heinz Ketchup because John Kerry's wife owns it, or any other good or service where someone their money will go to political views they do not support, then that is their Constitutional right.

It's also your right to ridicule them, but maybe you should try and come up with some concrete examples instead of just flinging random, unsupported assumptions about moral inconsistencies you think they exhibit.

max_wall_2000• 13 years ago

Ah, the old "why aren't they doing this instead" argument against activism. There should be an internet law for that one.

erikpukinskis• 13 years ago

I'm someone who has spent a lot of my life trying, often failing, to "be good". More and more, it seems like an impossible goal:

On the one side you can retreat to the woods and live off of roots and berries trying not to do any direct harm. But then, depending on your privilege, you leave on the table so many opportunities to steer the ship of society in a less harmful direction.

Or, at the other end of the spectrum you can yield all reaponsibility for your direct actions, instead throwing yourself into the wheeling and dealing of systems of harm, trying to invest what privilege you have to gain leverage so that you can make a bigger difference, focusing only on some theoretical calculus of your global influence, measuring yourself by your imagined net global effect.

Or, more likely, you pick something in between. In the end, we all make a personal decision about what we are willing to sacrifice.

I often use oil, even though I know it's harmful, because I think my boycott of it would cost the world more than it would gain. I could be wrong, but that's my best guess based on my (flawed) understanding of my self and my world.

And I may boycott Ender's Game and I do not think that's hypocritical. It's just an acknowledgement that there are limits to our power and we must choose our battles.

JoeAltmaier3• 13 years ago

'Not seeing a movie' is a pretty small battle. Did you act politically in favor/against the issue? Write a letter to your congressperson? Speak publicly on the subject?

We must not imagine for a second that a personal boycott is a significant political/moral act to anyone but ourselves. I agree, you must do what you can, but the movie is a trivial point at best. Your posting on this forum is more significant than, probably, the entire boycott issue.

Amadou3• 13 years ago

My approach has been that if it is easy to do, I had darn well better do it.

To illustrate - since I was a teenager I realized that the war on drugs was manifestly wrong. I chose not to participate in any aspect of the war on drugs as best I could. When I was fresh out of college, most forms of employment required a drug test. So I did it, reluctantly, but I felt I could stand on my principles as a pauper or compromise and live a reasonable life.

But once I had FU money in the bank, I felt that it was my obligation to refuse all future drug testing because the cost to me is now practically nil. Since I can pick and choose the jobs I take, it is my moral obligation to never compromise again.

A corollary to this approach is that anyone who shares my ideals and chooses to give up the comfort of an easy life for those ideals deserves an enormous amount of respect because whatever character flaws they may have, they are "walking the talk" more than I was willing to.

seivan2• 13 years ago

I do.

jlgreco3• 13 years ago

When I am aware of a connection, you are damn straight I make a point of avoiding giving them my money. There are a number of places that have been stricken from my vacation checklist for this reason.

Shivetya• 13 years ago

I cannot recall the last time I refused to see any movie because of the off screen views of anyone involved? To be honest, I am more inclined to watch movies when others start screaming boycott.

However some groups are more prone to take offense than others because they have found it an effective means to quiet opposition to their point of view, regardless if they are right or wrong. I would prefer that instead of attempting to bully others into your point of view you just shut up. As in, be reasonable or go home

sdoering• 13 years ago

Well you see. If anyone screams boycott, I am inclined to investigate. And then my findings are used to decide, what I am going to do.

And after investigating, I have to say, that I would not watch the movie.

The same for me is, if someone staring/directing was a know member of say scientology. As someone promoting an organization, that clearly goes against every value I honor should not earn money from me, that would then help said organization.

So I would not want my money to help someone that intolerant.

If people I know would go there, I would ask them, if they knew, that with going, they support someone that intolerant, someone being that derogative to gays.

But this would then be their decision to make.

theorique3• 13 years ago

I'm of two minds about this.

On the one hand, I don't like OSC's personal views about gays.

On the other hand, it's Ender's Game. As a movie!

sneak4• 13 years ago

Pirate it. Best of both worlds!

sigzero2• 13 years ago

Yes, do something illegal with it. That puts you on the HIGH MORAL ground. /s

ZirconCode• 13 years ago

I really loved the book, and I would really love to see the movie adaption, especially since OSC waited so long to personally pick a director he though would portray it well.

It's interesting because I remember in a later book in the series (Xenocide?), there were many off-planet colonies, and on those homosexuality was the norm and heterosexuals were seen as "weird". I don't recall any aggressive stance against gays in the entire series. Maybe I missed something?

I think as long as the book series doesn't mirror the authors perspective, it shouldn't play that big of a role.

adaml_623• 13 years ago

"I remember in a later book in the series (Xenocide?), there were many off-planet colonies, and on those homosexuality was the norm and heterosexuals were seen as "weird"."

I don't have a copy of Xenocide at the moment to check but are sure you're not thinking of 'The Forever War' by Joe Haldeman?

e12e4• 13 years ago

Sounds more like Haldeman to me as well (alas I don't have either book on hand at the moment).

gradstudent• 13 years ago

So conflicted. I love Ender's Game yet I hate its bigoted author.

scotty794• 13 years ago

You now know how gay hatitng Neil Patrick Harris fans must feel.

EnderMB5• 13 years ago

It seems like a terrible thing to do to the hundreds of potentially nice people that worked hard on this movie.

People will boycott this because of peer pressure, and to follow the crowd. People don't boycott the countless movies based on Roald Dahl books, even though it's very common knowledge that he held strong anti-semitic views.

Yes, I think his views are terrible, but that's not going to stop me enjoying his work. His literary output has nothing to do with his views. Enders Game is a fantastic book and I have high hopes for this movie; not just that it'll be a good port to the big screen, but that it'll help the careers of a number of young actors.

sneak4• 13 years ago

Nice people will know for next time not to work on projects that stand to enrich bigoted fuckheads.

Alternately, these nice people could have Googled him before agreeing to work with the guy.

Ziomislaw• 13 years ago

you are almost correct, I disagree with calling those ppl nice. it was their choice to support him, and as such it was their own decision to accept responsibility for it.

being stupid enough to not realize it is same excuse as nazis "only following orders".

EnderMB5• 13 years ago

It's Hollywood. Chances are their work has already enriched the lives of some bigoted fuckheads. Why single out a product based on another product by a noted homophobe when we won't do it to numerous others?

pron5• 13 years ago

I'm not saying that your view is wrong, but I should point out that it neuters almost every kind of political action.

Almost every undertaking is carried out by a large group of people. Most of them are innocent. All of them are probably nice. But bad things are often done by nice people -- sometimes because they don't realize that they're bad. Sometimes because they don't care enough. There are no bond-villains in real life. People who do evil don't think that that's what they're doing.

A possibly controversial example relevant to this forum is Google. I'm personally convinced that Google is one of the most sinister and "evil" (to use their own parlance) corporations that has ever existed, and I can support that claim (though I won't be doing that now). Yet, I know that not only are most Google employees really nice and innocent, even their top management has the best of intentions. Still, Google is evil.

Once you understand that good intentions often lead to evil actions, you get a different understanding of political action. Precisely because many people have participated in the making of this film, it is important to boycott it (if you agree with the boycotter's arguments). Otherwise, people will always have the defense of "but I'm just an actor", or "I didn't know". Everything we do is a political statement, and ignoring that fact is a political statement in itself, which says "I don't care about the message my work sends, I only care about my career".

Maybe if you boycott the film, those innocent actors will learn that next time they should make it their business to learn who they're working for.

pron5• 13 years ago

Replying to myself:

I haven't read Ender's Game, and I don't even know what it's about, but reading the Wikipedia article I've found something ironic:

Radford's criticisms are echoed in John Kessel's essay "Creating the Innocent Killer: Ender's Game, Intention, and Morality." Kessel reasons that Card justifies Ender's righteous rage and violence: "Ender gets to strike out at his enemies and still remain morally clean. Nothing is his fault."

It looks like (according to this criticism) that the author embodies the very viewpoint I pointed at. Namely that as long as your intentions are pure -- or, more precisely, innocent -- you are not responsible for your actions.

shiven3• 13 years ago

It seems like a terrible thing to do to the hundreds of gay people.

People will boycott this because of their convictions regarding right and wrong.

...it'll help the lives of a number of young gays...

---

Yes, I think his views are terrible, but that's not going to stop me enjoying his work.

Hypocrisy disguised as equanimity or what?

Bigotry is still bigotry if it spews from a person who saves countless lives, leave alone writing sci-fi.

anonymous• 13 years ago

When I first read the title, I thought they wanted me to boycott the movie because it wouldn't honour the book. Turns out it's because Orson Scott Card is an influential asshole who doesn't like gay people? I'm not sorry, and this is just petty poop-flinging. Hollywood as a whole is full of assholes and I don't see what makes this one special.

yaddayadda• 13 years ago

Orson Scott Card more than "doesn't like gay people" and he has done far more than simple boycotting of movies. He has gone out of his way, time and time again, for decades, to support legislation which is discriminatory. Ironically, now he wants people to be tolerant of his discriminatory actions. Sick irony!

sneak4• 13 years ago

Some fraction of your ticket price will likely fund the oppression of others.

icebraining2• 13 years ago

Hollywood as a whole is full of assholes and I don't see what makes this one special.

Agreed! Thankfully, there are many movies being produced out of Hollywood. Just from last year, I saw great films such as Amour (French-German-Austrian), Barbara (German) and Lore (Australian-German), which were better than anything I've seen from Hollywood in years.

clhodapp• 13 years ago

Most of those 'nice people' will not be affected by this, given that they were paid a flat salary or wage for their work.

EnderMB5• 13 years ago

Yet a number of users on here are slating those that choose to work with known homophobes. Does this not affect them?

algorias• 13 years ago

People are in many senses products of their time. It is a recent phenomenon that people are so acutely aware of discrimination (of all kinds) and the harm it does to society.

If someone was born in a time or place where that kind of awareness wasn't widely established, I'm willing to cut them a lot more slack. See also HP Lovecraft for another famous author whose writings have awkward racist and misogynistic undertones when read from today's perspective.

a3n• 13 years ago

I won't see the movie for the same reason I won't see a Tom Cruise (scientology cultist) movie anymore, I don't want to contribute anything to their voice. I know I won't silence them, that's not my point or even my wish. There are so many things to do in a day, I don't feel like I need to contribute to anyone's ability to spout or deceive, even in a miniscule way.

e12e4• 13 years ago

People don't boycott the countless movies based on Roald Dahl books, even though it's very common knowledge that he held strong anti-Semitic views.

From what I can find, it is common knowledge that he would make outrageous, sometimes hurtful and insensitive statements -- and that he (especially after reviewing a book on Israel's invasion of Lebanon) considered himself to be anti-Israel and an anti-Zionist.

That's hardly the same thing as being an anti-Semite.

If you know of any sources I've missed, please let me know -- but as far as I can tell it isn't "common knowledge that he held anti-Semitic views".

rorrr2• 13 years ago

I haven't been to a movie theater in years. I think I will go this time just to tell the religious assholes "go fuck yourself".

Sorry for the language.

mkr-hn• 13 years ago

How will going to see the movie tell them that?

Stranger2013• 13 years ago

What do you do when you don't like someone's use of freedom of speech? Try recruiting a mob to bully them.

gaius• 13 years ago

The Adria Richards strategy.

icebraining2• 13 years ago

Give it a rest already. So much ado about such a small event.

flatline• 13 years ago

One person's freedom to speak, another's freedom to censure them, both of which are covered under the first amendment. I don't understand the problem with this.

AndrewDucker• 13 years ago

There's a lot of discussion of this going on.

For instance, here's an ethical guide to consuming content created by awful people: http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/02/21/1619481/an-ethica...

thret• 13 years ago

I like the idea of moral offsetting; making a donation to an equal rights organisation to counter the money you spend on the movie.

ckozlowski3• 13 years ago

Without weighting in on OSC's views (as those are well covered elsewhere), I thought I'd point out something regarding the salaries and pay of those who worked on the movie, the support of which keeps coming up.

For anyone working on the film, stagehand, technician, engineer, whathave you, those people are already paid. They collect a salary throughout the years they're working on the film. They don't go unpaid until the movie releases, and hope for the best.

So for all of those men and women "in the trenches", they're a sunk cost, and won't feel the financial effects of how well the movie does or not. This is why some production houses end up posting losses on films. Even in those industries, the effects on those people are negligible. Movies are a journeyman industry, and quality work on a film is independent of viewer's end perceptions of it. By the time the movie is ready for release, those professionals have already moved on to other projects.

In fact, those who will feel the effects most keenly are not those at the bottom, who are already paid, but those at the top who's income is coming from the sales now that the film is completed. For OSC, who is most assuredly receiving royalties, this could be in the form of a much reduced paycheck. For the backers of this project, it could be a much smaller profit margin than anticipated, or even a loss.

cageface• 13 years ago

A lot of film studios pay crew bonuses for films that succeed at the box office. So a boycott in this case might actually take money out of the pockets of the rank & file.

mhd• 13 years ago

Sometimes I wish I could get over my inner 'realpolitik' and actually boycott some stuff that would deserve it, although that would spare few artists or even companies.

For artists, one could go with the 'Wagnerian razor', i.e. does the artist make money by your individual contribution? Which would be the case if Card gets a box office share. Although even that is morally questionable, as you're part of the support and thus fund future projects, enriching the author that way.

I sadly file all that under "things that would make me a better human", like regular exercise or visiting the dentist twice a year. Although this one wouldn't be hard, as never was a big fan of Ender's Game, being a bit too old for the Mary Sue factor and not liking the morals of the book. I still play Monkey Island every few years, though...

polskibus• 13 years ago

Tolerance doesn’t mean forking over 10 bucks to see his movie Is it really his movie though? Arent authors always screwed by hollywood in such enterprises ?

shrikant• 13 years ago

Unknown-ish authors are -- like Winston Groom, when he agreed to have Forrest Gump made into a movie, and got screwed by "Hollywood accounting" because he'd accepted a percentage of the profits.

Well known ones have enough negotiating power to demand a cut of the gross receipts and merchandising.

Edit: A little more on the Winston Groom aside from Wikipedia:

Winston Groom's price for the screenplay rights to his novel Forrest Gump included a share of the profits; however, due to Hollywood accounting, the film's commercial success was converted into a net loss, and Groom received nothing. That being so, he has refused to sell the screenplay rights to the novel's sequel, stating that he "cannot in good conscience allow money to be wasted on a failure".

ukoto3• 13 years ago

Just like Chik-fil-A boycott? Oh wait they've seen record profits lately. Perhaps it's because the silent majority of people are sick of gay culture? Fortunately I live in Russia where we've recently and unanimously passed several bills defending traditional marriage.[1] I would much rather my child read an anti-gay author than a gay one, and Ender's Game is a classic that I will surely pass on after I have a real marriage. A real marriage is consummated, which is defined by intercourse, which is defined by penis in vagina, which same-sex couples cannot do. The point of marriage is to have kids and build a strong family. But homosexuals would rather change the definition of a word to win the argument (moving the goal posts). In America, marriage will die off since it will become a meaningless government contract.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russias-duma-...

ckozlowski3• 13 years ago

Offered reading:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/907...

JoeAltmaier3• 13 years ago

That rant is so tired, so inconsistent, so laced with hate-speech, its become wearisome to respond to its ilk. Let me just say, lots of older couples, infertile couples, 'normal' couples get married never intending to have children, even in your own religion, that that fundamental argument is silly.

Why do you keep making it? You come off sounding desperate, defensive, selfish. You make sex sound mechanical, impersonal. I cannot imagine what kind of marriage you are describing, but it is not a marriage of joy and commitment.

mercurial• 13 years ago

No need to feed the troll.

ukoto3• 13 years ago

laced with hate-speech

This is like the made up term "homophobia". Just because I disagree with you and use my free speech to do so, does not give you the right to assume my opinions are coming from negative attributes. On the contrary, I care deeply about the future for my children.

lots of older couples, infertile couples, 'normal' couples get married

And they certainly can get married and consummate. It's unfortunate they won't be able to have children but perhaps they can adopt. I do not think same-sex couples should adopt, because this kind of terrible things happen[1].

Why do you keep making it?

This is the first time I've posted about gay marriage on HN.

I cannot imagine what kind of marriage you are describing, but it is not a marriage of joy and commitment.

Any parent will tell you: children are the greatest joy and a huge commitment. That is exactly what I'm describing.

[1] http://rt.com/news/pedophile-syndicate-russian-boy-481/

beedogs2• 13 years ago

Pathetic that these kinds of accounts are showing up even on HN.

ukoto3• 13 years ago

Are you living in a cave? The opinions that I am espousing are fully supported by huge modern nations such as Russia. I just gave you a link showing the government's unanimous support of bills banning gay propaganda. So why do you assume I'm a troll? Does it shatter your fragile world view to realize many intelligent and sane individuals are against gay marriage, so you have to imagine me as a joke?

That's what this whole news story is about. A dignified and successful author is against homosexuality, and the progressive community can't handle any opposition to their views so they tar and feather their reputation. So much for tolerating other viewpoints...

pron5• 13 years ago

The point of marriage is to have kids and build a strong family

What are you, a Russian peasant? Did you grow up in a Kolkhoz? In a small village in Siberia? Is that a joke? "Yes, we Russians want good, strong, healthy family. We like our women with strong child-bearing hips". I hope the readers here don't get the impression that you represent Russian culture, so just to make things clear: just like in America, these views are more representative of Russian hillbilly rednecks. Russia has given us some of the most subversive, interesting, anti-bourgeois minds in all of Western culture.

dwb• 13 years ago

Naturally you'd be against hetrosexual marriages where at least one person is infertile then, or where they don't want to have children.

There has never been a single universal definition of marriage.

dsr_2• 13 years ago

I liked Ender's Game when I first read it.

Then I thought about it.

Ignore anything else the author has done: in this particular story, he poses a conflict between survival and ethical behavior, and illustrates it repeatedly... by having characters choose survival over ethics. He makes them heroes for it.

Well. That's a brave stance. Except... that every time a character is given that decision, it is also clear, whether or not the author intended it, that there was a third path that could have solved the survival problem ethically. Maybe multiple paths.

It's not clear to me that Card actually thought about that, though, which reduces the story to what it actually is: a tale of organized child abuse, hero worship and genocide, with a "hero" who doesn't understand what he's doing but gets a magical redemption that he does nothing to deserve.

(Although the last clause is probably intentional.)

dmansen2• 13 years ago

I found this analysis interesting: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm. They make the point that the "survival" choice is always presented as the only option and that Ender's morality is never questioned due to his intentions (intentions that we only see from Ender, not any of the other characters, due to the perspective of the narrative).

dllthomas4• 13 years ago

Did you ever read the sequels? Society only judges Ender favorably in the short term.

jlgreco3• 13 years ago

After giving in and reading Ender's Game for the first time, I didn't like it. I thought that Card was using children as main characters as an excuse to avoid character development (just having your child character learn something is a way to fake it, the character remains one dimensional while learning something concrete about the world.)

I told people this and they told me to read Ender's Shadow instead. Same complaint, the characters are shallow, no matter how vivid on the surface.

So then I decided to pick up a Card book outside that series, and read The Memory of Earth. Stunningly bad. Seriously hack work. A few years later I looked it up, turns out all he did was plagiarize The Book of Mormon and add a nominally sci-fi theme. What the hell?

Every time I complain about Card I am told that I just need to read more Card. No, not anymore.

tome• 13 years ago

I've got a sense of what you're talking about, but could you give explicit examples? That would help make it clearer.

(I know that some of them will be massive spoilers for those who haven't read the book!)

dsr_2• 13 years ago

dmansen's comment in this thread points to an excellent analysis.

scotty794• 13 years ago

I liked the book (which I read being young teen) exactly because it was a tale of organized child abuse (that's how I saw any armed forces btw), hero worship and genocide, with a "hero" who doesn't know what he's doing. I didn't see the redemption though. Maybe is's beaceause I read "Speaker for the dead" soon after. Although as I recall it was clearly said that Peter won't let Ender come back to earth at least not to be anything else than his puppet.

Of course as a teen I very much liked startegy, tactics, battles and kind of lord of the flies social dynamics that rang a bell with my earlier childhood memories.

I guess that this books somehow shaped my view of the world as I usually think that survival is the most impotant thing but that there's no glory or moral high ground to it and the fact you survived or saved someone doesn't absolve you in any way from what you did to achieve that.

seivan2• 13 years ago

I called for a boycott the last time a post about Enders Game was up, the guy is a total ass without the decency to admit he's being an ass. Even I do that.

sigzero2• 13 years ago

To admit something, you have to believe in some way that it is true. He probably does not and so he doesn't own up to it.

silentmars• 13 years ago

I think it's more likely that he's a self-hating closet case than merely an ass, personally.

whiddershins3• 13 years ago

I have talked to pop stars who say their handlers "don't let them" say anything political at all, for fear of exactly this sort of thing. It actually lowers the level of political discourse to punish people for expressing their views.

And anyway, come on.

Ender's game is one of the greatest science fiction books of all time. Lots of creative people hold and express unpopular views. Often those views change, over the course of their lives. What matters is whether their work moves you, inspires you, makes you think of new things.

You should judge an author (painter, musician) on her work, not on what she says outside of her work.

rtpg• 13 years ago

It actually lowers the level of political discourse to punish people for expressing their views.

it's not punishing people for expressing their views, it's punishing people for their views. Allowing evolution deniers the stage to talk lowers the level of political discourse.

waylandsmithers• 13 years ago

I'm not sure I entirely sign off on this complete lack of separation between art and artist. I understand that context is important, but does the artist really need to be a good person for his or her work to make you think, or feel an emotion, or be entertained?

I don't think it's entirely fair to assume an inherent bias or hidden agenda in the work based solely off beliefs the creator is believed to hold. What if Card felt this way, but just kept those feelings to himself? I understand that people don't want to support or empower those like Card, so I'm personally conflicted now as to whether I will see this film.

As an interesting personal side note, I went to high school in Massachusetts in the early 2000s, when the state was at the forefront of progress for same-sex marriage, and Ender's Game was required reader for every English class during the summer before sophomore year. I suspect it still is, and it's probably required at other schools. We spent weeks discussing the book, and it still comes up in conversation every now and then, since we all had to read it, and this is the first I've heard about Card's homophobic beliefs.

"Ender's Game" movie faces a boycott

Related Stories