Cultural Reading: Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games Trilogy

I think Twitter was the main reason I chose to read Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games trilogy.

No, it wasn’t because my followers on Twitter suggested I read the books, or that a person I follow recommended them at large. Instead, I was becoming completely unglued at every sight of the never-ending casting announcements for the upcoming film adaptation of the first book in the series, The Hunger Games, coming in the Spring. More than any other film in recent memory, it seemed as though every single role was a piece of news, and I became too curious to resist diving into the series.

A few weeks later, I emerged with an understanding for the books’ appeal and a large pile of critical thoughts that I’m itching to discuss with other folks who have read the books. Although I rarely dive into literature around these parts (although this will likely not be the first time this summer that I do so), I figured that this is as good a place as any to consider what makes the series distinct, what makes the series an ultimate disappointment, and why I’m extremely curious to see how they plan to adapt this story given some of its particular qualities.

Spoilers for the entire Hunger Games Trilogy follow.

A First-Person Page Turner

There are two narrative devices that are consistent throughout the trilogy.

The first is the first person narrative perspective of Katniss Everdeen, our heroine and our guide to this world. The second is Collins’ love of the chapter cliffhanger, in which a reveal or some type of exciting event happens in the very last line of each chapter so that turning the page over is impossible to resist. The former makes it easier to enter into this world, while the latter makes it more challenging to remove yourself from it.

And yet, while I completely understand why these two devices were chosen, both are damaging to the overall impact of the series. Now, within The Hunger Games itself as an individual book, I think both devices are smartly utilized. Early in the book, the cliffhangers are an ideal way to sell the way the Games immediately raise the stakes in Katniss’ world, while the first person narrative is useful both for exposition and for capturing the psychological toil that the very idea of the games can offer. Later in the book, the cliffhangers are the ideal way to capture the constant pressures of the arena, and the first person narrative helps parcel out both Katniss’ general psychological state (including her relationship with Peeta) and the sense of isolation she feels during the early days of the Games.

The problem is that what start out as intelligent becomes limiting by the time we reach Catching Fire. It’s a novel that promises an expansion of the story world, with visits to all twelve districts and eventually news of uprisings in some of the other districts as a result of their presence. There are dark and harrowing moments on that trip, and some of them are nicely viewed through Katniss’ eyes (or ears), but you always get the sense that they’re on the periphery. It reminds me of the later Harry Potter novels, to make a Young Adult connection, in that you couldn’t help but feel that the most interesting part of the story was happening in a space outside of the narrative focus.

The first person perspective also becomes a crutch for Collins, and she uses it to redefine the story world through exposition. As a result, it all feels a bit repetitive, and Katniss spends a lot of time conveniently recapping previous events and previous feelings so that new readers (and readers who had forgotten about those events) can catch up. It’s functional, but it risks making Katniss feel more like a narrator than a teenager, which really pulled me out of the early parts of the second novel. It also seemed strange for Collins to continue the same cliffhanger structure that punctuated the end of the first book early in the second. There’s a case to be made that part of Collins’ point is that life is an arena, an argument that fits particularly well with the central premise of Mockingjay, but it still feels like Collins is going through the motions when she could be establishing more abstract narrative structures that better reflected unique situations. Instead, it’s just the same pattern repeating, which is fine but fails to achieve the same heights as the opening story in the trilogy.

Of course, once she returns to the arena in the Quarter Quell, everything works again: the internal dialogue is crucial to our understanding of the neverending thoughts running through a tribute’s head during the Hunger Games, while the cliffhangers are only logical in a clicking clock of doom. And yet, it also means that the rhythms of the second book are identical to those in the first: the dynamics may change, especially given the larger alliance that Katniss and Peeta form, but Colins seems like she is just going through the motions. The early parts of the novel felt like a chance for a real departure, perhaps even expanding the narrative focus beyond Katniss’ isolated view, but the fact that the narrative structure doesn’t change is reflective of a larger aversion to real transformation in that second book.

By the time we reach Mockingjay, the two devices diverge in terms of usefulness. The cliffhangers start to make a bit more sense, given how on-edge everything is in the wake of the growing rebellion and the battle between the Capitol and District 13, so the constant “edge-of-your-chair” moments are both justified and effective (especially once they actually reach the Capitol, and it becomes a makeshift arena of sorts). However, because of how large the scale of the books have become, the narrowing focus on Katniss seems like it does the story a disservice. While I understand that these novels are about Katniss, and there are logical reasons for her to remain central to the war effort and thus to our narrative, there’s definitely a point in Mockingjay where the scale of the world grows too large for the narrative focus to seem adequate.

Darkness on the Edge of Panem

Although this is arguably young adult fiction, there is no question that this is “dark” young adult fiction. Now, as a recent (fairly suspect) Wall Street Journal article sees it, darkness is defined as the grotesque and horrifying, filled with rape and violence and everything in between. In the piece, Meghan Cox Gurden speaks out against darkness in young adult writing, and argues that “No family is obliged to acquiesce when publishers use the vehicle of fundamental free-expression principles to try to bulldoze coarseness or misery into their children’s lives.”

While Gordon does not single out The Hunger Games trilogy outside of a brief mention, I think it’s important to note that there is a difference between being misery and being about misery. Relative to that definition of darkness, the Hunger Games is actually quite tame or, rather, quite justifiable. The violence we see is horrible, but the “darkness” is more often framed in terms of morality than through outright cruelty. The darkness isn’t in what happens, in other words, so much as in why and how it happens. The very idea of the Hunger Games is what is so dark about this world, and the murder that takes place within it is disturbing less in terms of the act itself and more that it is condoned and supported by a hungry public desperate for the sport of it all.

Now, there are obviously a bunch of fictional precedents for this kind of situation, but the spectacle of it all is perhaps my favorite part of the Hunger Games as a whole. The way in which the media and television are used as a source of control is fascinating to me as a media scholar, especially when we enter into Mockingjay where both sides are fighting for control of the airwaves. I also quite enjoyed the very notion of the propos, and the way in which the propaganda war was fought using our central characters as pawns for both sides. While the second novel frustrated me by putting the war effort purely in the shadows, Mockingjay made the war seem real, and yet also made Katniss’ relationship with that war more complex, especially as it related to her use as the public face for the campaign.

There is a lot of death in these novels, given the very nature of the Hunger Games and all, but I like the way in which certain deaths continue to resonate throughout the books. Although the exposition got a little bit much at times, it never felt like any particular death went unnoticed beyond some of the more random killings in the arena. It may seem weird to suggest that more emphasis on deaths is less dark, but allowing someone like Rue to resonate beyond her initial death is key to ensuring that death doesn’t seem random or pointless. From a plot point of view, a lot of people die: however, because those deaths are integral to central themes of the trilogy, it results in a meaningful bleakness as opposed to a suffocating one.

One issue I do have, though, is the question of villainy within the piece. As much as Collins does a nice job early on of making the culture of the Hunger Games the enemy, the shift towards President Snow as a “big bad” never quite sat right for me. The way she retroactively makes the Hunger Games out to be his own sadistic playground, and the way she reveals his treatment of the winners, just seems like a convenient way to give the piece a villain. There’s a poetry to Katniss’ final moments with Snow in Mockingjay, and their altercation at the beginning of Catching Fire is one of the few early parts of the book that really landed for me, but I sort of liked the idea of “The Capitol” being the enemy more than this single figure. It was a case of the story being narrowed for the sake of narrative simplicity, with any historical or bureaucratic structures of the Capitol squirreled away in favor of a singular vision of evil. I like the way the conclusion somewhat alters this structure, making it clear that Coin is as much a product of that culture as Snow was, but the desire for a more clear Katniss vs. Snow narrative somewhat took away from the larger societal corruption that the first book seemed to hint at.

Questions of Adaptation

Now, given these two broader topics of conversation relating to the novels, I have a fair number of questions in terms of how they’re intending on adapting these novels.

For example, related to both sections, do they intend on maintaining the tight first person narrative when Katniss is in the arena? I make this point because reading the books I kept wanting to see what the cameras were actually showing, to see if Katniss’ predictions about what the camera were and were not showing were true. Reading the books, I imagined those scenes in The Truman Show were we cut away to the various fans watching along around the world, and wondered if the movie could possibly resist cutting away to District 12 or even the Capitol during various key moments. There’s obviously a value to reflecting Katniss’ true isolation, but reading the books I kept wanting to know more about Haymitch’s efforts to get them sponsors, and to see how the gamemakers were responding to the threats against their system. The novels seem satisfied to refer to this depth without really exploring it, but I think the value of expanding that part of the novels is worth the loss of shared isolation, especially if we see more examples of how each day’s activities were framed for audiences.

I’m also curious what they’re going to do with the various cliffhangers: on some level, as Mo Ryan pointed out during a recent chat, the book chapters are structured more like episodes of a television series than scenes in a film. Now, I think they can just sort of gloss over the cliffhangers without much of a problem, but they could still reflect many of them by using those moments to cut away to the cameras, to show the Capitol’s excitement or Prim’s horror at what dangers Katniss is facing.

In terms of darkness, I think the way they’ve aged up the characters (at least visually) will make this more palpable: I would have been fine if they hadn’t aged them up, but it seems like it will give them some more room to explore the horrors of the arena without feeling as though they’re pushing kids too harshly (and thus might be able to get away with a PG-13 rating). Rue is very clearly pitched as the youngest participant, and her death will obviously play a huge role in the first film, so I don’t think the films will be able to abandon the bleakness of the novels (as some might fear, given many efforts to Hollywoodize literary properties).

Reading the novels, I didn’t have any real concerns over casting: Lawrence seems perfect for Katniss, and while it took me a while I began to see what Hemsworth and Hutcherson were placed into the male leads in the way they were. At first it seemed like Hutcherson was more the trusted best friend type, and thus a better fit for Gale, but the romance arc (despite never becoming a central point of interest in the novels for me personally) evolved in such a way to make Hutcherson a strong choice for Peeta. The rest of the supporting cast seems similarly solid, and I’ll be curious to see (should the series continue) how they cast the remaining roles of some importance.

And yet, speaking of the series continuing, most of my adaptation thoughts went towards the possibility, raised last week as I was finishing Mockingjay, that they would be splitting the series into four films. Now, there’s obviously precedent for this: Harry Potter and Twilight both did it, and you can see Lionsgate is eager to follow in their footsteps with this franchise. However, Mockingjay is not quite as lengthy as those final volumes, and it also doesn’t feel as though it has a lot to resolve that would take a lot of time. Unless they plan on abandoning the first person narrative and expanding some of the others characters’ stories, I’d actually argue that Mockingjay has some filler that could be trimmed down in a cinematic adaptation.

If they were to split the series into four films, they would either have to stretch out Mockingjay or shift around the major cliffhangers. However, I would say that Catching Fire’s cliffhanger is among the strongest in the series, and does a great job of building suspense for the next film, which makes it more likely that they’d try to stretch out Mockingjay by adding more of the war and spending a bit more time in the arena-like streets of the Capitol. It’s a risky decision either way, and I imagine the box office results from Part 2 of the Deathly Hallows will be closely watched by Lionsgate this summer.

The Ranking Games

In terms of ranking the novels, I’m sticking with my first instinct: The Hunger Games is the strongest novel by a wide margin, while Mockingjay’s intriguing wartime politics are a more interesting contribution to the series than anything in Catching Fire (which just seems like a slight evolution from the first novel). I wanted more from Mockingjay, and I can see how some might be frustrated with its departure from the first two novels, but I really wanted it to depart even further, truly blowing open this narrative instead of just calling attention to the changes. Admittedly, I also have issues with transitional stories that feel like they’re marking time, existing purely to stretch the storylines from the first story into the last – it’s the same issue I had with the second Pirates of the Caribbean film, for example, and it definitely soured me on Catching Fire as well.

Overall, I’m glad that I read the series, both because I found parts of it extremely interesting and because I think there’s value in understanding cultural phenomena. Did I become wholly invested in this story? No – there were points, in Catching Fire in particular, where I became detached from Katniss’ plight, and the similar structures of the three novels became a bit of a wear on my patience. However, I thought Collins did a nice job of keeping the stakes high, and managed to keep the love triangle interesting even if it took a few personality changes here or there to ensure that things were complicated enough to make a rational decision impossible.

These are, at the end of the day, well-written and intelligent books that appeal to a wide range of readers, so I look forward to seeing how that is framed for movie audiences in comparison to other young adult success stories.

Cultural Observations

  • I think my favorite bit of casting in terms of supporting characters is Paula Malcomson as Katniss’ mother – I have a feeling that the producers saw Caprica.
  • As far as epilogues go, this one wasn’t quite as awful as Harry Potter’s, but it still felt a bit too straightforward given the complexity of the novels. It’s a happy ending where I don’t think “happy” is the proper word, so I would have liked something a bit more abstract than “little kids reading scrapbooks to learn about Mommy and Daddy murdering people.” Although, on second thought, that is kind of badass in its own way.
  • I refer to this above, but seems to me that Cain and Finnick are the two main roles that will need to be filled should the franchise continue, so I’m curious what kind of speculation is floating around for these figures.
  • I rag on Catching Fire a fair bit, and I really don’t like the first half of that book, but I sort of love the Clock Arena and the way it is slowly revealed. I wanted more from the book, but the Arena delivered, so I see how some remain positive on the book s a whole based on its presence. Still, the Arena actually seems a bit too rushed compared to the early parts of the book, so the balance is also an issue there.
  • Any contenders for the most senseless character death? I’d argue that maybe Finnick could have managed to hang on, if only to save us from the “Annie is carrying his child” portion of the ending that seemed way too convenient, but no death stands out as particularly useless, which is key.
About these ads

17 Comments

Filed under Cultural Reading

17 responses to “Cultural Reading: Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games Trilogy

  1. cko

    Excellent insights from many different angles; now you’ve inspired me to finish the third book.

  2. For the reasons you point out, “Mockingjay” is my favorite of the series. There’s less crazy arena action and more actual depiction of the effects of war. The use of propaganda is also explored effectively. And the final moments of the series (I won’t give anything away) are probably the best in the entire series. Still, overall I was a little let down (as it appears you were). I’d give the first two books a B- and the final one a B+.

    P.S. Interesting that you would argue that the first-person narrative hurts the final book. I agree to a point, but I found Katniss’s development in that book to be fascinating. So it didn’t bother me quite as much.

  3. tracy

    taylor kitsch for finnick. glenn close for coin. and most importantly, adam baldwin for boggs. oh, and kristen bell for johanna. done!

  4. I’ll agree with you and say that The Hunger Games is the strongest book out of the three, but Mockingjay was a definite worst for me. The latter half was so rushed through that I had to read it twice just to figure out where the hell they were. Catching Fire was pretty decent, but for some reason I can’t remember why I liked it. That’s not good.

  5. Your Paula Malcomson thought was exactly what I was thinking as well! She just does that depressed wife thing so well!

  6. Mimi

    The first time I read the books The Hunger Games was my favorite with Mockingjay second, but then I read them again (and again and again) and Catching Fire became my favorite. They really are a different experience the second time through.

  7. This is a fantastic analysis of the books, even if I don’t agree on every point. I actually liked Catching Fire the best of all three, even though I’d agree that the first half’s constant recaps gets a bit tiring. I absolutely loved the Clock/puzzle aspect of the Arena, though and the cliffhanger ending. I definitely need to re-read these though. It’s been about a year since I initially read them, and I’m getting rusty on the plot.

  8. AO

    I’ve never heard of these books or the movie. I guess that we tend to visit different sites Myles.

  9. Really interesting to hear more critical thoughts on these books. My first response was basically giddyness that these books approached the popularity of Twilight, but contained a MASSIVELY superior attitude towards women and role models for the young girls reading. I mean Katniss was an actual person, and competent and exceptional in some ways, and her love interests didn’t make me want to shoot myself in the head. Actually it really confuses me about the world, that the same people love these two series…but I’m just glad to see a popular young adult novel whose sexual politics don’t make me despair about the future of the human race.

    My main problem with the books was the repetitive structure you mentioned. I didn’t mind the first person narrative at all, and in fact don’t think the books would have worked as well for me if it had been different. I actually quite enjoyed Katniss’ limited perspective on the beginning of the unrest, and her unintentional direct role in it. I also enjoyed her direct antagonism with the President in Catching Fire, though I understand your point about the narrowing of the ‘villain’ in the piece…I do think that Collins subsequently widening it again was enough for me there.

    What I couldn’t stand in Catching Fire, though I liked it once we got into the Arena and the cliff-hanger made it pay off completely for me – I hated the artificial imposition of the first book’s structure onto the second book’s story. I saw where it came from and I understood why, but I found it hugely, frustratingly repetitive as a reader. And again in Mockingjay, I resented the idea of the capitol as another arena. In both cases, even when narratively it was justified sentence by sentence, plot point by plot point, it felt to me like a completely artificial imposition..

    But in the end, unlike you I didn’t find the books to be ultimately a disappointment. I did connect with them and enjoy the world they created (well enjoy is perhaps the wrong word). They are books I might reread and I would certainly recommend. Maybe I’m grading on too much of a curve because of my dislike of the twilight books and subsequent craze, but I’d consider them quality young adult fiction.

    *Actually Finnick’s death was key for me, in that I’d really grown to appreciate and (a bit) love the character, so his death was the only one that really had meaning for me and gave the other deaths meaning as that team went into the Capitol. Primm’s death, while necessary and key, felt more manipulative to me.

  10. Karen

    Myles, again your review includes multiple insights and quality information. I’d like to add some random comments (since I am not nearly as gifted at finding unifying threads to connect my thoughts-lol):

    *It’s important to remember that these novels are/were originally intended for “young adults” which, despite the nomenclature, are really kids from 10-14 years old. MOST of my students have read the books. Most ADORE the books. IMO, that first person narrative sustained thru three books is a key reason that target audience is so hooked.

    *My school is discussing this summer whether to use these books as part of our lit program, with interdisciplinary connections to 6th grade ancient civ topics, particularly Ancient Rome (natch) and the 7th grade government/Constitution course, along with Animal Farm. Our initial concern about the “darkness” was, sadly, out of place as parents were very supportive, and surveys revealed that MOST of our 6-7-8 students see R rated movies all the time. I think it’s a “dirty little secret” that there’s very little monitoring of children’s reading and viewing nowadays, so imo, it’s better to bring in something of quality and make the case for helping children to become more discerning. Ms. Lawler, I HEARTILY endorse the anti-Twilight perspective available with the HG trilogy.

    *I do wonder if the series would translate better as a cable series instead of a 3 or 4 part movie (artistically). I guess the $ is in the movies though.

    *I feel that while the first person narrative was (mostly) effective throughout the trilogy, the movies may be better served with a less Katniss-centric eye. Game of Thrones has been terrific with its approach, and the book-character viewpoint was one of the key concerns in the translation from one medium to another.

    *Taylor Kitsch as Gale was denied (too old I guess) so Finnick would be awesome. And Bell as Johanna. Yes!

  11. When I read the book what stood out was how aware I was of the author. It’s the wrong word but everything felt so contrived. I love poetic or fated storylines, but the avox girl, Prim being drawn and the berries, oh those berries, I was so aware of the reason behind everything. It wasn’t a huge problem in the first book, the idea was new and at times surprising, but the second and third books seemed more like fan-fiction where the author is desperately trying to recapture the charm of the first book.

  12. I basically agree with your criticisms of the series. The repetition and limited perspective become a greater problem as the story progresses. (Telling the story from her point of view certainly eliminates the tension of the fate Katniss will meet at the end of the first two books.) I don’t have an issue with the repetition when equivalent to “previously on…” reminders, but Katniss tends to engage in a lot of mental wheel-spinning or talk/think in a way that feels very authorly.

    I’ll wager that the romance elements, which the books seem both obligated to insert and uninterested in, will be ramped up in the films.

    More than anything, I hope the films can draw better characters than Collins does. The series is stronger at constructing scenarios and imagining this world than it is at developing the people in it. I found the books to be worth reading but not always up to the task of fulfilling the potential of the ideas in them.

  13. maryploppins

    I got pulled into these books for the same reason Myles did – I kept seeing casting news EVERYWHERE I turned on the internet … and I was wondering why everyone was so excited about something I’d never even HEARD of before. But the subject matter intrigued me so I bought the first book and instantly got sucked in and couldn’t stop till I finished all three. I am TOTALLY with Karen Lawler (commenter above) in that my main reaction to these books is to just be thrilled that they are SUCH a 180 degree turn from Twilight … with such a strong female lead … they are like a huge breath of fresh air. As a female, I just have NEVER understood the Twilight craze, given that its lead character is so weak. It has always driven me nuts.

    So my elation at having such a strong female protagonist for three books probably makes me judge some of the weaker points of the novels less harshly. ;-) But that said, I definitely had some similar frustrations as Myles did while reading these books. The first person narrative was definitely frustrating for me in certain parts of the second two novels for the same reason Myles mentioned – because I wanted to know more about what else was happening with the rebellion. For me it started halfway through Catching Fire when I THOUGHT Katniss/Gale/Haymitch/etc. were going to just go ahead and join the rebellion themselves, but then Katniss/Peeta ended up getting called back into the arena. At that point I was literally throwing my hands up in the air thinking noooooooo this is just a waste of time!! We need to get to the damn rebellion now hahaha. But the arena part of that novel was still entertaining to me, and I liked the way Katniss and Peeta started being more ballsy about their symbolic acts of rebellion when preparing to go back to the arena. And Cinna with the costume and all, I thought those were some great moments. And I would definitely agree that that book ended very strongly.

    The frustrating thing in Mockingjay for me was that Katniss ended up having even LESS power to control her own life than she did when she was under the thumb of the Capitol … which was not what I expected going into the thing. I thought it would be more freeing for them to FINALLY get to the damn rebellion. Also the fact that she seemed to second guess her end goal every 5 seconds in that book drove me a little nuts as well. But it still hooked me in just as much as the other two and I enjoyed the ride.

    I literally just finished the third book so it’s hard for me to rank them right now … but one thing I do know is that I enjoyed Catching Fire in general much more than Myles did. The first half of the book was definitely slow and the arena seemed a little like a waste of time, but at least we saw by the end of that novel that in the end, the characters did accomplish something there. They made a lot of progress in turning the “hearts and minds” of the people (away from the Capitol) in that section of the story. And I liked the twist at the end.

    Overall these books were definitely not a disappointment for me despite their shortcomings, if only because I am just soooo thrilled to have a strong female protagonist to root for, after having to deal with stupid Bella Swan being shoved down our throats for the past several years hahahah.

    My biggest concern is how the hell they are going to make PG-13 movies out of these … especially the third novel. The first two they might be able to get away with. But the third is just SO violent and DARK and depressing and so much blood and guts … I don’t know how they are going to make that PG-13 without completely ruining it.

  14. Pam

    Interesting reading these comments – I enjoyed the books but was left feeling a little disappointed or let down. Reading here I find definition for my disappointment!

    But in the end I was drawn into the author’s world and felt the characters and even teared up a few times. The resolution to the relationship between Katniss and Peeta seemed rushed or brushed off to me but the only nagging issue was the unanswered question of did anyone else besides Katniss and I think Haymitch know/suspect that Coin was just another potential Snow in the making? Does it ever come to light? Apparently her trial didn’t touch upon it. Maybe for the stability of the ‘new order’ if anyone did know it was carefully ‘contained’. I would have loved some resolution or at least discussion by others. It seemed too simple an answer to Katniss’ action that it was labelled one of insanity.

  15. Nik

    I agree with you that collins did a good job with the deaths in making them significant for the most part. Although I felt the exact opposite about Finnicks death. While he wasnt very likeable at first, he became veryy likeable and one of my favorite characters. when he died in the streets of panem i had to reread the part because I wasnt sure what happened to him and if he really died. I do understand they were on the move and being persued by enemies so I dont know how this would have been corrected but it just seemed like he was a huge character then just gone. also i thought the ending of mokingjay wasjust very sad. i was shocked that prim died and it was sad that katniss lost her sister, became seperate from her mom, became sepperate completely from gale. i know it would be unrealistic for everything to workout perfectly but when i got to the end I felt as if the situation was a loss. especially since we really basically never see the same peeta after he is hijacked except like a glimpse. katniss also is much different by the end. obviously its more realistic with everything that happened but it just made it seem like katniss lost. it didnt seem like any kind of happiness in the ending. even when they had kids it just seemed grim. I will be interested to compare the picture i have in my head with how they portray the movie. I still think it would have been good for prim to survive. and instead of katniss losing gale over that it coulda been something else.
    With all that said i couldnt put the books down and i thought they were great. the finale was just hard to swallow

  16. Pingback: Improving Without Changing: Adapting The Hunger Games: Catching Fire | Cultural Learnings

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s