StartseiteGruppenForumStöbernZeitgeist
Web-Site durchsuchen
Diese Seite verwendet Cookies für unsere Dienste, zur Verbesserung unserer Leistungen, für Analytik und (falls Sie nicht eingeloggt sind) für Werbung. Indem Sie LibraryThing nutzen, erklären Sie dass Sie unsere Nutzungsbedingungen und Datenschutzrichtlinie gelesen und verstanden haben. Die Nutzung unserer Webseite und Dienste unterliegt diesen Richtlinien und Geschäftsbedingungen.
Hide this

Ergebnisse von Google Books

Auf ein Miniaturbild klicken, um zu Google Books zu gelangen.

Lädt ...

Call Them by Their True Names: American Crises (and Essays)

von Rebecca Solnit

Weitere Autoren: Siehe Abschnitt Weitere Autoren.

MitgliederRezensionenBeliebtheitDurchschnittliche BewertungDiskussionen
2801174,768 (4.18)27
National Book Award Longlist Winner of the Kirkus Prize for Nonfiction Winner of the Foreword INDIE Editor's Choice Prize for Nonfiction "Rebecca Solnit is essential feminist reading." --The New Republic "Solnit's exquisite essays move between the political and the personal, the intellectual and the earthy." --Elle Rebecca Solnit is the author of more than twenty books, including the international bestsellerMen Explain Things to Me. Called "the voice of the resistance" by theNew York Times, she has emerged as an essential guide to our times, through her incisive commentary on feminism, violence, ecology, hope, and everything in between. In this powerful and wide-ranging collection, Solnit turns her attention to battles over meaning, place, language, and belonging at the heart of the defining crises of our time. She explores the way emotions shape political life, electoral politics, police shootings and gentrification, the life of an extraordinary man on death row, the pipeline protest at Standing Rock, and the existential threat posed by climate change. The work of changing the world sometimes requires changing the story, the names, and inventing or popularizing new names and terms and phrases. Calling things by their true names can also cut through the lies that excuse, disguise, avoid, or encourage inaction, indifference, obliviousness in the face of injustice and violence.… (mehr)
Lädt ...

Melde dich bei LibraryThing an um herauszufinden, ob du dieses Buch mögen würdest.

This is another brilliant collections by Rebecca Solnit, who seems to me to be a very wise woman. Some of the pieces are very hopeful, in a modest, realistic, way. Solnit recognizes that things don't usually turn on a dime. People have to think about new ideas before they adopt them. Solnit speaks strongly, but she doesn't engage in pointless recriminations or savaging of (most) people. I particularly like her acceptance of imperfection, her condemnation of naive cynicism, and her recognition that things, like taking advantage of the poor and the marginalized is really a form of violence.

I will ask to be excused for spending most on this review on one particular essay that I didn't like, but it always takes so much longer to explain why one disagrees that to praise what one agrees with -- the latter tends to speak for itself. This is a very important issue for me. This is probably going to be an essay in its own right, and may therefore be skipped as not really part of a review.

It is Solnit's "Facing the Furies" essay that I have trouble with, although I would probably agree that 80%-90% if anger is a waste. It seems rather odd in a collection that seems to almost vibrate with anger, even if carefully expressed, and indignation. I needed to pause between essays, partly so that I could think about them, but also to take a rest from the intensity.

She starts out this essay with Kenny Roger's "Coward of the County," in which the main character, Tommy, avenges the gang rape of his wife or girlfriend, Becky, by beating up the perpetrators. I'll look at this several different ways.

The essay seem a bit disjointed to me. Annoyance, anger, fury, and rage, are mixed together with little distinction. Solnit several times quotes Martha Nussbaum, whose Anger and Forgiveness: Resentment, Generosity, Justice, I consider to be a waste of trees. Neither Nussbaum nor Solnit seem to distinguish between being angry, displaying anger, and correctly displaying anger. Nussbaum thinks that everything is either so trivial, that it should be ignored, or can be turned over to the legal system with no further involvement, or indeed, thought, by the victims. Apparently there is no need for a trial to establish the facts, there is just the matter of redeeming the perpetrators, because as-we-all-know, people only do bad things because they have been failed by society. How does this work if the object of our concern refuses to admit to doing anything? After all, the victim is not supposed to be involved in the legal process, and that may make proof impossible. This was an explicit or implicit belief of liberals in the 1960s, when Nussbaum apparently stopped thinking. The victim on the other hand, was a privileged member of society who had every material and mental resource to bounce back from whatever had been done to them. I often wondered how one explained crimes by middle- and upper-class white men? Does this sound like a reasonable explanation of Donald Trump. Harvey Weinsten, Bernie Madoff, highly paid business executives who embezzle money, companies that knowing sell dangerous products, companies that pollute, whether or not they are breaking the law, the reckless financiers who so badly damaged the world economy in 2008? Solnit criticizes many of these same people in her other essays, so why is anger inappropriate. I believe that that these people do more damage to our society than street crime.

Nussbaum quotes Aristotle in building her definition of anger as a desire for payback. I can selectively quote him to: "Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy." This seems to me to suggest that Aristotle did think that anger is sometime right. I think that using only the word "pay-back" to describe the the focus is anger is inadequate. Joseph Carroll, in his book, Literary Darwinism, suggests that the humanities need to be grounded in a more thorough understanding of scientific studies, in Nussbaum's case, in things like game theory and evolutionary psychology. Game theory has shown, that at least for western cultures, economic gain is not the only motivator of human behavior - subjects will sacrifice money to reinforce fairness and equity. Societies requires reciprocity among their members to function, and sanctions to discourage people who attempt to cheat or get a free ride. Societal even if not cosmic balance. Even if one does not believe in evolutionary psychology, it does offer insights into the purposes of some human behavior. A monkey will happily eat carrots, until it sees that another monkey has been given the preferred treat, grapes. At that point, it will protest, refuse the carrots, and even throw them at the experimenter. My brother's dog became jealous because he thought that my dog's dinner looked better, so I averted the incipient dog fight by promising him the same. Interestingly, he apparently understood, stop his aggressive behavior, and waited confidently for a better dinner for himself. She also might read up on the importance of boundaries. As a psychology book that I am reading now says. it is necessary for a person to set and boundaries and insist that they be respected, something that women are notoriously discouraged from doing.

Nussbaum also uses a case of rape as an example, coincidentally naming the victim Rebecca. Instead of looking at things through Rebecca's eyes, she uses the point of view of Rebecca's close friend, Amanda. Oddly enough, neither Nussbaum nor Solnit ever consider how the victim Becky/Rebecca might feel. Rape wasn't a good example if Nussbaum was trying to convince e me. She thinks it is ridiculous is Amanda sees the rape as a down-grading of herself (or apparently Rebecca). In the first place, since she has specified that it is a stranger rape, she apparently doesn't think that they should take it personally, despite the fact that it happened to Rebecca personally, let alone should Amanda feel that her dignity is assaulted. Considering how rape is treated in this country and throughout the world, if rape isn't taken as downgrading a woman, I certainly take it to be a signifier of the contempt in which women are commonly held, and rapists to be reinforcing that contempt. No, I don't think that Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein were unfortunates suffering from societal neglect, nor that that same neglect justifies Bill Cosby's behavior.

Nussbaum thinks Becky/Rebecca should react to being raped by abandoning their “narcissistic anger”, and recognize the need to preserve the dignity of her rapists. Solnit talks about the lack of recompense or restorative justice for Becky in the Kenny Rogers song. Martha Nussbaum would not approve of either. Nussbaum also does not believe in forgiveness, since believing in forgiveness is also an assault on the dignity of the perpetrators. It seems to me that she ends up in the same place, though - all the work is dumped back on the victim as an additional burden. One of my Christian friends insists that not only must one forgive the perpetrator, but one must undertake to be their lifelong mentor. (What if they don't want to be mentored?) I have read of cases where people have done that, and it seems reasonable, since it is their choice. Presumably, Nussbaum thinks that the women in the #MeToo movement have it all wrong. As I noted, she feels that anything that isn't illegal is trivial, and should be overlooked. I am younger than Nussbaum, and I can remember Jim Crow laws, poll taxes and literacy tests for Black people who wanted to exercise their right to vote, laws against miscegenation, and the tolerance of discrimination against ethnic and racial minorities, women, and anyone in the LGBTIA categories, (I've probably missed something.) Those were not illegal at the time, so according to Nussbaum, they were trivial, and presumably all the Civil Rights movements have all been misguided. Nussbaum attempts to finesse this issue by arguing that they should have been illegal. But as a favorite hymn says: "Time makes ancient good uncouth / They must ever up and onward / Who would keep abreast of truth." Are personal attacks on dignity, currently trivial in Nussbaum's estimate, also trivial? Should they be? Are they any more acceptable, especially in a workplace, than the above?

I walked in one morning to find a new co-worker that I had never met who immediately tore into my about how my work was greatly inferior to the work performed by my counterpart in the branch that she came from. Since she could have known absolutely nothing about my work, I spent a moment wondering if this she was a lunatic or this was a dominance game, I decided that since my boss was happy with me, her opinions meant nothing, and expressed my anger by babbling about how wonderful counterpart was, and how I hope that she was appreciated, and she deserved a promotion, on and on until the woman gave up in confusion. She was obviously humiliated a few days later when she had to ask for my help. Being professional, I cheerfully gave it to her, chuckling inwardly all the time at her karmic comeuppance. Hopefully that taught her to get along better with her colleagues. Her comments were still somewhat damaging - although I suspected that she was lying, it also hurt my self-confidence, especially when I was temporarily assign to her old workplace. I quickly saw what a liar she was.

What Nussbaum does think is worth getting angry about is men who insist of helping her with her luggage, even when she tells them that she doesn't want their help. Annoying, yes, worse than rape, robbery, discrimination, and murder, no.

Some of Nussbaum's ideas for rehabilitation, like nutrition and education, are actually things we should be doing for a children from the start. I don't have children myself, but I think we are responsible for getting all the children in our society to at least age 18 in the best health and with the best education we can. I don't complain that 60% of my property taxes go to schools for other people's children. If it were up to me, every public school child would be offered a free breakfast and lunch, tutors would be available, college at state universities would be free, and job training for those who don't care for college would be made readily available. Many of the things that people propose for offender rehabilitation should have been offered to them from the start. Maybe then they wouldn't get into trouble in the first place. Yes, I know it's costly, and so are prisons. I'd be willing to pay more taxes for that. But it won't end crime, especially not white-collar crime. No, I am not afraid of discouraging poor people from working - if a little bit of money did that, how come wealthy people keep trying to accrue more and more?

Rather oddly, Solnit talks about a woman raised as a conservative Christian, and the fact that they place a high value of women being forgiving, which she apparently deplores. I suppose that Solnit means to contrast this to the idea of of Becky's partner reacting violently when she is attacked. (I am having a little trouble imagining a man who is unused to fighting taking on three men simultaneously and winning, but I nitpick.) I assure everyone that such attitudes are not limited to conservative Christians, or conservatives, or Christians. Nor is it limited to forgiveness. I personally am quite fed up with being told that I must have provoked an aggressor in some way (maybe he hit me because I unknowingly had an odd look on my face), particularly since the slightest provocation justifies extreme, violent reactions. I must have misunderstood. Maybe they were having a bad day. I should be more patient. If there is no way to blame me, than I need to forgive (whichever definition of the contested word we are using), overlook, reflect on their good qualities, give an inch, and reconcile, all the real and emotional work being my responsibility, of course. According to my self-appointed and unwanted moral advisors, I have no right to say that I don't want revenge or a quarrel, I simply find the person consistently unpleasant, and want to avoid them. Gas-lighting, all of it, trying to tell me that I cannot trust my own emotions and judgement. I ignore them as much as I can. but like the work insult above, it still chips at my self-confidence. I might be more impressed if they took their own advice. Solnit comments that anger has been considered the privilege of white, straight, males, but I don't see how that is supposed to convince me that other people are not entitled to it.

I also read Jean Briggs' Never in Anger, about a certain group of Inuit that she studied. At least Solnit recognized that Briggs didn't think that they were never angry, just that they exercised self control. Nussbaum chose to ignore that. In reality, some Inuit, there are a number of different groups, have a high rate of violence, and they may also raid one another. Unfortunately, Amazon cut off comments in their reviews, so I would have to research the name, but another anthropologist found that the Inuit she studied attempted to solve conflicts by referring the offenders to elders for admonishment. After a few tries, an offending male Inuit may be invited to go hunting on an ice floe and shoved off.

Having experienced some of the explosive relatives in one branch of my family, any two of whom could have a knock-down-drag-out fight over any issue, however trivial, like the hours-long battle over someone accidentally knocking the candy eye off a chocolate Easter bunny, I realized that anger needs to be discarded if not useful. In such cases, anger is sapping one's strength. I stopped getting angry if people try to cut into my lane, and just began slowing down so that they get in safely. I have also realized that one needs to understand why one is angry. I was in the library one day when a man was sitting as a table with two young children. When I began to feel that the next peel of childish laughter would drive me over the edge, I packed up my things and left. Since normally I would have found the family charming, clearly I was not angry at them, my anger was overflowing from something else. I decided that I was not fit to be in public in such a bad mood, and went home to calm down.

I think anger is very useful when being reasonable isn't working, and I need to stand up for myself, especially given all my training in being an inoffensive doormat. Then anger is a source of strength - when I am angry, I think faster, I'm more articulate and bolder. The expression still needs to be managed. I consider myself to have failed if I yell, curse, or sling insults, let alone use any violence. I was angry at some relatives who threw out heirlooms from my mother, but I have never said anything. It would not get the things back, it would create friction with people I prefer to be on good terms with, and there is no useful lesson to be learned, so it simply isn't worth displaying anger. Jean Safer, in her book, Forgiving and Not Forgiving, pointed out that the importance of forgiving, or overlooking, as Nussbaum might prefer, depends in part on the value of our relationship with the offender.

On the other hand, a former friend once said the most offensive thing anyone has ever said to me. I was angry, and there was an edge in my voice, but I attempted to remain calm and reason with her. She laughed, and in a magnificent show of gas-lighting, ignored everything I said and reframed the issue as my being concerned that she thought less of me. She told me not to worry, as she forgave me for my unfortunate ancestry. Given her total failure of understanding, I realized that if I didn't want to hear this again, I needed to scream at her (it worked). I do not delude myself that I changed her mind about her conduct, I just made it clear that such remarks will have unpleasant consequences. Even fury has its place on rare occasions. The mother of a friend of mine used to caution against stooping to the level of an offender -- it's makes me the same. No ma'am, I replied, I don't start fights, I just end them. I said that one has to deal with people on a level that they understand - if it means screaming at, or walking away from someone who can't be reasoned with, so be it. One time a woman told me that I should be ashamed because it was parked so close to their SUV, her husband wouldn't be able to open his door. I said that I was leaving, so that solved that, but she screamed at a still shriller pitch and demanded that I look at how I was parked. I looked and said that I that I saw that I am parked entirely in my space, and her SUV was parked partly in my space. Even more shrilly, she screamed that that didn't matter and I should be ashamed. To her great, and even shriller anger, I got in my car and drove off.

So, back to Becky. Judging what was appropriate for her husband/boyfriend, I would have to know what would have happened if it was reported to the law. Would they call her a lying slut who was out to ruin the reputations of three good men? Would they take a rape kit and never analyze it? Would they try to convince her that there was no real harm done, and it was best to avoid an unpleasant trial? Is this the sort of lawless place where one needs to make it clear on one's own that there WILL be consequences, which was, on a lesser level, what I was doing with my former friend. Restitution - offering restitution to rape victims would probably only add fuel to the argument that they are lying, in this case to get money. Restorative justice? What would that offer her? Would the perpetrators just laugh at her or accuse her of provocation or overreacting? Would they say they were sorry - almost everyone is after they're arrested. I can see lining up all the people who suffered from the vandalism of a pair of teenagers who thought that they were funny, but not routinely for more serious matters. I am told that it helps the victim to understand that the perpetrators are human beings and not monsters. Is there some contractions between being human and behaving monstrously that I'm unaware of? Everyone, male, female, intersex, nonbinary, or gender-fluid (or any other the other 40-70 odd genders that I have read that there are, will need to fight sometime, even if it isn't physical. Properly managed anger is a help. ( )
  PuddinTame | Nov 26, 2021 |
Ms Solnit is brilliant, as always, but she isn't always edited well by her publisher who, in her 4th essay collection for Hey Day books has once again, put her work in kind of a jumbled nonsense of a pile. If you can stand that these essays seem thrown about like yesterday's laundry, you'll be fine. On their own, they are magical, particularly "Preaching to the Choir" ( )
  Smokler | Jan 3, 2021 |
I've read a lot of Solnit's work, and I particularly like the essays in this collection. ( )
  KimMeyer | Sep 8, 2020 |
I always love [[Rebecca Solnit]]'s essays, and this collection was particularly good. The uniting focus is that words and labels matter and that small actions can add up to big change. Though times are dark, this collection is surprisingly hopeful. The essays sparked my anger but also made me proud of the way many in our country are standing up and making their dissatisfaction public.

I bought a bunch of Solnit's collected essays and I think I'll pick up another right away. Solnit's writing is always points out the uncomfortable and always challenges me to reassess my biases. Plus her skill in the use of the English language is remarkable. ( )
  japaul22 | Jul 18, 2020 |
The book was published in 2018, so the information is a little dated but reflects back on political events and how they have affected the community involved. The events covered include shootings of minorities, the Dakota Pipeline and its impact on the indigenous people, and Hillary Clinton's run for president. I admire the writer's ability to weave all these events together and come up with a lucid conclusion. We need to stand up as women for ourselves and any oppressed people. ( )
  kerryp | Jul 4, 2020 |
keine Rezensionen | Rezension hinzufügen

» Andere Autoren hinzufügen (2 möglich)

AutorennameRolleArt des AutorsWerk?Status
Rebecca SolnitHauptautoralle Ausgabenberechnet
Campbell, CassandraErzählerCo-Autoreinige Ausgabenbestätigt
Hansson, HelenaÜbersetzerCo-Autoreinige Ausgabenbestätigt
Weintraub, AbbyUmschlaggestalterCo-Autoreinige Ausgabenbestätigt
Du musst dich einloggen, um "Wissenswertes" zu bearbeiten.
Weitere Hilfe gibt es auf der "Wissenswertes"-Hilfe-Seite.
Gebräuchlichster Titel
Originaltitel
Alternative Titel
Ursprüngliches Erscheinungsdatum
Figuren/Charaktere
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen.
Wichtige Schauplätze
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen.
Wichtige Ereignisse
Zugehörige Filme
Preise und Auszeichnungen
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen.
Epigraph (Motto/Zitat)
Widmung
Erste Worte
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen.
One of the folktale archetypes, according to the Aarne-Thompson classification of these stories, tells of how "a mysterious or threatening helper is defeated when the hero or heroine discovers his name." -Forward
Zitate
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen.
So many of us believe in perfection, which ruins everything else, because it is not only the enemy of the good, it's also the enemy of the realistic, the possible, and the fun. ("Armpit Wax," p.5)
These supple stories, unalarmed by improvisation, failure, and sex, remind me of jazz. In contrast the creator in the Old Testament is a tyrannical composer whose score can only be performed one right way. The angel with the flaming sword drove out of Eden because we talked to snakes and made a bad food choice about fruit snacks. Everything that followed was an affliction and a curse. Redemption was required, because perfection was the standard by which everything would be measured. And by which everything falls short.

But if you give up on grace, you can give up on the fall. You can start enjoying stuff that is only pretty good. ("Armpit Wax," p.7)
I have often run across men (and rarely, but not never, women) who have become so powerful that there is no one around to tell them when they are cruel, wrong, foolish, absurd, repugnant. In the end there is no one else in their world, because when you are not willing to hear how others feel, what others need, when you do not care, you are not willing to acknowledge other's existence. That's how it's lonely at the top. It is as if these petty tyrants live in a world without honest mirrors, without others, without gravity, and they are buffered from the consequences of their failures.

"They were careless people," F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote of the rich couple at the heart of The Great Gatsby. "They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made." Some of us are surrounded by destructive people who tell us we're worthless when we're endlessly valuable, that we're stupid when we're smart, that we're failing even when we succeed. But the opposite of people who drag you down isn't people who build you up and butter you up. It's equals who hold you accountable, true mirrors who reflect back who you are and what you're doing. ("The Loneliness of Donald Trump," p. 13)
Most new ideas begin in the margins or shadows and move toward the center. They are often something that a few people thought, something that seemed radical or edgy or a bit too much, or just something hardly anyone noticed or felt strongly about. If they were ideas about justice, they were considered extreme or unrealistic. Then the idea kept traveling, and by the end of the journey it was what everyone had always thought. Or, rather, what they thought they had always thought, because it's convenient to ignore that they used to not pay attention or had thought something completely different, something that now looks like discrimination or cluelessness. A new idea is like a new species: it evolves; it expands its habitat; it changes the ecosystem around it; and then it fits in as though it was always there, as though we as a nation had always condemned slavery or believed women deserved the vote or thought nonstraight people were entitled to the same rights as straight people. ("Twenty Million Missing Storytellers," p. 33)
Naive cynics shoot down possibilities, including the possibility of exploring the full complexity of any situation. They take aim at the less cynical, so that cynicism becomes a defensive posture and the avoidance of dissent. They recruit through brutality. If you set purity and perfection as your goals, you have an almost foolproof system according to which everything will necessarily fall short. But expecting perfection is naive; failing to perceive value by using an impossible standard of measure is even more so. Cynics are often disappointed idealists and upholders of unrealistic standards. They are uncomfortable with victories, because victories are almost always temporary, incomplete and compromised -- but also because the openness of hope is dangerous, and in war, self-defense comes first. Naive cynicism is absolutist; its practitioners assume that anything you don't deplore, you wholeheartedly endorse. But denouncing anything less than perfection as morally compromising means pursuing aggrandizement of the self, not engagement with a place or system, or community, as the highest priority. ("Naive Cynicism," p. 53)
Letzte Worte
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen.
(Zum Anzeigen anklicken. Warnung: Enthält möglicherweise Spoiler.)
Hinweis zur Identitätsklärung
Verlagslektoren
Werbezitate von
Originalsprache
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen.
Anerkannter DDC/MDS
Anerkannter LCC

Literaturhinweise zu diesem Werk aus externen Quellen.

Wikipedia auf Englisch

Keine

National Book Award Longlist Winner of the Kirkus Prize for Nonfiction Winner of the Foreword INDIE Editor's Choice Prize for Nonfiction "Rebecca Solnit is essential feminist reading." --The New Republic "Solnit's exquisite essays move between the political and the personal, the intellectual and the earthy." --Elle Rebecca Solnit is the author of more than twenty books, including the international bestsellerMen Explain Things to Me. Called "the voice of the resistance" by theNew York Times, she has emerged as an essential guide to our times, through her incisive commentary on feminism, violence, ecology, hope, and everything in between. In this powerful and wide-ranging collection, Solnit turns her attention to battles over meaning, place, language, and belonging at the heart of the defining crises of our time. She explores the way emotions shape political life, electoral politics, police shootings and gentrification, the life of an extraordinary man on death row, the pipeline protest at Standing Rock, and the existential threat posed by climate change. The work of changing the world sometimes requires changing the story, the names, and inventing or popularizing new names and terms and phrases. Calling things by their true names can also cut through the lies that excuse, disguise, avoid, or encourage inaction, indifference, obliviousness in the face of injustice and violence.

Keine Bibliotheksbeschreibungen gefunden.

Buchbeschreibung
Zusammenfassung in Haiku-Form

Beliebte Umschlagbilder

Gespeicherte Links

Bewertung

Durchschnitt: (4.18)
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3 5
3.5 2
4 18
4.5 4
5 11

Bist das du?

Werde ein LibraryThing-Autor.

 

Über uns | Kontakt/Impressum | LibraryThing.com | Datenschutz/Nutzungsbedingungen | Hilfe/FAQs | Blog | LT-Shop | APIs | TinyCat | Nachlassbibliotheken | Vorab-Rezensenten | Wissenswertes | 164,530,015 Bücher! | Menüleiste: Immer sichtbar