What do you think?
Rate this book
Studies in Literacy, the Family, Culture and the State
賲賳胤賯 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賵 鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷乇氐丿 毓丕賱賲 丕賱兀賳孬乇賵亘賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱卮賴賷乇 噩丕賰 睾賵丿賷 貙 賵 賷丨賱賱 賵 賷賮爻乇 貙 丕賱賮乇賵賯丕鬲 丕賱賵丕爻毓丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱賱鬲賷 毓乇賮鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賵 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 賵 丕賱賱鬲賷 賱賲 鬲毓乇賮賴丕 賵賴賵 貙 賲賳 丿賵賳 廿胤賱丕賯 丕賱兀丨賰丕賲 毓賱賶 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 貙 賷亘賷賳 丕賱丿賵乇 丕賱賱匕賷 兀丿鬲賴 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 亘賵氐賮賴丕 鬲賰賳賵賱賵噩賷丕 賮賰乇賷丞 賮賷 鬲卮賰賱 兀賳賲丕胤 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 賵 賲丐爻爻丕鬲賴丕 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賵 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 賵 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳賷丞 賵 丕賱亘賷乇賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 ...
415 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1986
9 people are currently reading
221 people want to read
About the author
Jack Goody
87听books63听followersSir John (Jack) Rankine Goody (born 27 July 1919) is a British social anthropologist. He has been a prominent teacher at Cambridge University, he was elected Fellow of the British Academy in 1976,[1] and he is an associate of the US National Academy of Sciences. Among his main publications are Death, property and the ancestors (1962), The myth of the Bagre (1972) and The domestication of the savage mind.
Jack Goody explained social structure and social change primarily in terms of three major factors. The first was the development of intensive forms of agriculture that allowed for the accumulation of surplus 鈥� surplus explained many aspects of cultural practice from marriage to funerals as well as the great divide between African and Eurasian societies. Second, he explained social change in terms of urbanization and growth of bureaucratic institutions that modified or overrode traditional forms of social organization, such as family or tribe, identifying civilization as 鈥渢he culture of cities鈥�. And third, he attached great weight to the technologies of communication as instruments of psychological and social change. He associated the beginnings of writing with the task of managing surplus and, in an important paper with Ian Watt (Goody and Watt, 1963), he advanced the argument that the rise of science and philosophy in classical Greece depended importantly on their invention of an efficient writing system, the alphabet. Because these factors could be applied to either to any contemporary social system or to systematic changes over time, his work is equally relevant to many disciplines.
Jack Goody explained social structure and social change primarily in terms of three major factors. The first was the development of intensive forms of agriculture that allowed for the accumulation of surplus 鈥� surplus explained many aspects of cultural practice from marriage to funerals as well as the great divide between African and Eurasian societies. Second, he explained social change in terms of urbanization and growth of bureaucratic institutions that modified or overrode traditional forms of social organization, such as family or tribe, identifying civilization as 鈥渢he culture of cities鈥�. And third, he attached great weight to the technologies of communication as instruments of psychological and social change. He associated the beginnings of writing with the task of managing surplus and, in an important paper with Ian Watt (Goody and Watt, 1963), he advanced the argument that the rise of science and philosophy in classical Greece depended importantly on their invention of an efficient writing system, the alphabet. Because these factors could be applied to either to any contemporary social system or to systematic changes over time, his work is equally relevant to many disciplines.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
June 11, 2024
讴鬲丕亘 丿乇禺卮丕賳貙 丿卮賵丕乇禺賵丕賳 賵 噩丕賱亘 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丕夭 噩讴 诏賵丿蹖.
August 7, 2023
鈥淥r to revert to the earlier classification, why are they primitive and we advanced? We try to state the nature of these differences in very general terms鈥攖he move from myth to history, from magic to science, from status to contract, cold to hot, concrete to abstract, collective to individual, ritual to rationality. Such movement inevitably tends to be phrased not only in terms of process but of progress too; in other words it acquires a value element.鈥�
--Jack Goody, 鈥淓volution and Communication: The Domestication of the Savage Mind鈥�
Writing is a technology like no other. It is no less a technique for power and dominion over the souls, minds, and bodies of plain folks everywhere. How is this so? Well, since the dawn of history, a largely unnoticed army of priests, courtiers, bureaucrats, merchants, lawyers, scientists, journalists, and many other literates have employed writing to channel cognitive order and to sustain a social organization. It should come as no surprise that the introduction of writing has without fail altered the historical trajectory of civilizations, not only in the place where writing first emerged, in ancient Mesopotamia, but also in modern contexts, like post-colonial Africa. After reading Goody, I feel it remains to be seen how his 鈥榣ogic of writing鈥� should be applied in the future as we move to a post-print era of virtual (il)literacies and of refracted and emergent social (dis)organizations.
Writing is invariably perceived as magic by those new to the idea. And writing does appear to do magical things. With writing, it suddenly becomes possible to communicate at a distance. This can be physical distance, as when sending a message far away, or it can be social distance, as when the face-to-face audience with the king comes to be replaced by a literate legion of bureaucrats standing between the individual people and their leadership. The technology of writing also makes it possible for all kinds of information to be stored and later retrieved, thereby extending the life of the word through time as well as across space, like magic.
Writing plays an important role in religion, especially for the world鈥檚 largest religions. Writing can lead to the development of bodies of scripture. These scriptures generate orthodoxies, inviolable and closed systems of truth which demand total allegiance to the fixed word of God.
The technology of writing is moreover a prerequisite for any advanced mathematics, math being obviously important for science, but also crucial for commerce and trade. For mathematics enables the symbolic abstraction of number away from the objects to be counted, and this numerical skill leads to the adoption of another transformative technology, money.
Goody insists that the adoption of literacy changes both how people think as individuals and how they organize themselves in larger groups. In part this is because writing is instrumental in reducing and reordering complexity. Thus, both the particular local custom and the facts of the individual case are reduced to (made to fit) a universal code of law. Law reduces the chaos of events to the order of the rule. The legal code鈥檚 authority spreads across both time and space in its universal standardization of individual situations. In enabling comprehension of the particular case in terms of the universal rule, writing moreover makes it possible to distinguish the person from the office as well as to separate the individuals from the corporation.
A people鈥檚 adoption of writing can certainly be a unifying and even conservative force. Yet in other ways, writing moves a culture from collectivism to individualism. For example, rites of passage (rituals marking changes in social category: births, initiations, marriages, and funerals) in the days before writing were validated and certified by the village, totem, or tribe coming together to mourn or celebrate collectively, thereby forming an important social memory that the appropriate rite of passage had taken place. After writing, this validation of status is handled by bureaucrats in a more private way (birth certificates, diplomas, marriage licenses, and death certificates). Rituals and celebrations are still important, and will always remain so. Yet under modernity, one鈥檚 legal persona is managed by the state and no longer by local custom or tradition.
The technology of writing has always required a base of specialists. In the beginning, the skill of writing was restricted to priests and Brahmans, those experts who kept and preserved the word of the gods and goddesses. The power of writing was also important to the state, which needed writing in order to rationalize the state apparatus according to the writ of the ruler, or else by means of universal and eternal writings of law and equity. And while the bureaucrats were busy passing communications up and down the state-bureaucracy ladder, merchants used writing in order to devise systems of credit and banking. As a function of literacy, long-distance communication made long-distance trade feasible.
As commerce grew, contract, title, and testimony became important vehicles for a legal system with its own set of writing experts: lawyers, judges, prosecutors. Legal writings were kept to serve as objects for future reference, for clarification, for guarantee, or for precedent.
After being standardized and thereby frozen for many centuries, scholarly languages became the exclusive property of clerics and classicists, at least in some communities. Their canonical texts eventually became mumbo-jumbo to folk untrained in reading the dead languages. Through being written down and standardized long ago, languages like Buddhist Pali, Hindu Sanskrit, and Christian Latin outlived their vernacular speakers by millennia.
What鈥檚 more, as written knowledge in the living vernacular of the state became more specialized and more powerful, the illiterate were often unable to defend themselves legally. Native populations were in innumerable cases displaced from and dispossessed of their ancestral land holdings, simply because they could not produce a written deed. This not only happened in ancient empires but also continues to take place in modern (post-)colonial situations. Sometimes, knowledge really is power. When the powerless are reduced to statistics in the bureaucrat鈥檚 ledger, indirect rule, as was practiced for example by the British in India and China, becomes possible.
Clearly, Goody is ambivalent about labeling these kinds of long-term changes as progress. Civilizations truly gain a lot through writing, but they can lose just as much. Levi-Strauss, for one, saw the birth of writing as the beginning of man鈥檚 exploitation by man. Goody is definitely more optimistic, however, on the benefits of literacy. For him, reading 鈥減ermits a greater distancing between individual, language, and reference than speech, a greater objectification which increases the analytical potential of the human mind.鈥� (p.142) Of course, people can be the victims of an analytical mind as much as they can be the beneficiaries of one. In places where writing makes its debut, as in conquest scenarios like Norman England or colonial sub-Saharan Africa, a wholesale reorganization of both thought process and social organization can turn the world upside-down for many. So while Goody is clearly successful in locating 鈥渢rends in the evolution of the organization of society,鈥� he is equally certain that these long-term historical changes can not be labeled progress tout court.
If I were to criticize Goody, I would say that The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society is a little too frozen in time, a little too orthodox. Jack Goody was a great historian of long-term changes in the means of communication. But in 1986, he had little to say about the post-literate world we seem to be headed towards. He dismissed the global village idea of McLuhan, yet he doesn鈥檛 take up McLuhan鈥檚 challenge and attempt to understand what happens to the message after the medium changes drastically. After reading Goody鈥檚 Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society, I feel I am left with many questions. Is social media a return from the written/read to the oral/aural? Or perhaps it is only a kind of adventure in the audio-visual universe? Does the fact that people carry phones/cameras and the internet with them at all times point to a world beyond the hegemony of paper, print, and book? Or is this proliferation of data points merely feeding the prerogatives of some new and unnoticed priests and mandarins of the state or economy? Are we becoming more or less of a statistic when we tether ourselves to a satellite in the cloud? It鈥檚 worthwhile to pose these questions, even if anthropology in its current state might still be unable to provide cogent answers.
In sum, if writing does not end oppression and justice but merely gives them what Goody called 鈥渁nother format,鈥� then I have to ask: what formats of oppression and justice can we expect in the imminent post-literate but hyper-graphic age?
--Jack Goody, 鈥淓volution and Communication: The Domestication of the Savage Mind鈥�
Writing is a technology like no other. It is no less a technique for power and dominion over the souls, minds, and bodies of plain folks everywhere. How is this so? Well, since the dawn of history, a largely unnoticed army of priests, courtiers, bureaucrats, merchants, lawyers, scientists, journalists, and many other literates have employed writing to channel cognitive order and to sustain a social organization. It should come as no surprise that the introduction of writing has without fail altered the historical trajectory of civilizations, not only in the place where writing first emerged, in ancient Mesopotamia, but also in modern contexts, like post-colonial Africa. After reading Goody, I feel it remains to be seen how his 鈥榣ogic of writing鈥� should be applied in the future as we move to a post-print era of virtual (il)literacies and of refracted and emergent social (dis)organizations.
Writing is invariably perceived as magic by those new to the idea. And writing does appear to do magical things. With writing, it suddenly becomes possible to communicate at a distance. This can be physical distance, as when sending a message far away, or it can be social distance, as when the face-to-face audience with the king comes to be replaced by a literate legion of bureaucrats standing between the individual people and their leadership. The technology of writing also makes it possible for all kinds of information to be stored and later retrieved, thereby extending the life of the word through time as well as across space, like magic.
Writing plays an important role in religion, especially for the world鈥檚 largest religions. Writing can lead to the development of bodies of scripture. These scriptures generate orthodoxies, inviolable and closed systems of truth which demand total allegiance to the fixed word of God.
The technology of writing is moreover a prerequisite for any advanced mathematics, math being obviously important for science, but also crucial for commerce and trade. For mathematics enables the symbolic abstraction of number away from the objects to be counted, and this numerical skill leads to the adoption of another transformative technology, money.
Goody insists that the adoption of literacy changes both how people think as individuals and how they organize themselves in larger groups. In part this is because writing is instrumental in reducing and reordering complexity. Thus, both the particular local custom and the facts of the individual case are reduced to (made to fit) a universal code of law. Law reduces the chaos of events to the order of the rule. The legal code鈥檚 authority spreads across both time and space in its universal standardization of individual situations. In enabling comprehension of the particular case in terms of the universal rule, writing moreover makes it possible to distinguish the person from the office as well as to separate the individuals from the corporation.
A people鈥檚 adoption of writing can certainly be a unifying and even conservative force. Yet in other ways, writing moves a culture from collectivism to individualism. For example, rites of passage (rituals marking changes in social category: births, initiations, marriages, and funerals) in the days before writing were validated and certified by the village, totem, or tribe coming together to mourn or celebrate collectively, thereby forming an important social memory that the appropriate rite of passage had taken place. After writing, this validation of status is handled by bureaucrats in a more private way (birth certificates, diplomas, marriage licenses, and death certificates). Rituals and celebrations are still important, and will always remain so. Yet under modernity, one鈥檚 legal persona is managed by the state and no longer by local custom or tradition.
The technology of writing has always required a base of specialists. In the beginning, the skill of writing was restricted to priests and Brahmans, those experts who kept and preserved the word of the gods and goddesses. The power of writing was also important to the state, which needed writing in order to rationalize the state apparatus according to the writ of the ruler, or else by means of universal and eternal writings of law and equity. And while the bureaucrats were busy passing communications up and down the state-bureaucracy ladder, merchants used writing in order to devise systems of credit and banking. As a function of literacy, long-distance communication made long-distance trade feasible.
As commerce grew, contract, title, and testimony became important vehicles for a legal system with its own set of writing experts: lawyers, judges, prosecutors. Legal writings were kept to serve as objects for future reference, for clarification, for guarantee, or for precedent.
After being standardized and thereby frozen for many centuries, scholarly languages became the exclusive property of clerics and classicists, at least in some communities. Their canonical texts eventually became mumbo-jumbo to folk untrained in reading the dead languages. Through being written down and standardized long ago, languages like Buddhist Pali, Hindu Sanskrit, and Christian Latin outlived their vernacular speakers by millennia.
What鈥檚 more, as written knowledge in the living vernacular of the state became more specialized and more powerful, the illiterate were often unable to defend themselves legally. Native populations were in innumerable cases displaced from and dispossessed of their ancestral land holdings, simply because they could not produce a written deed. This not only happened in ancient empires but also continues to take place in modern (post-)colonial situations. Sometimes, knowledge really is power. When the powerless are reduced to statistics in the bureaucrat鈥檚 ledger, indirect rule, as was practiced for example by the British in India and China, becomes possible.
Clearly, Goody is ambivalent about labeling these kinds of long-term changes as progress. Civilizations truly gain a lot through writing, but they can lose just as much. Levi-Strauss, for one, saw the birth of writing as the beginning of man鈥檚 exploitation by man. Goody is definitely more optimistic, however, on the benefits of literacy. For him, reading 鈥減ermits a greater distancing between individual, language, and reference than speech, a greater objectification which increases the analytical potential of the human mind.鈥� (p.142) Of course, people can be the victims of an analytical mind as much as they can be the beneficiaries of one. In places where writing makes its debut, as in conquest scenarios like Norman England or colonial sub-Saharan Africa, a wholesale reorganization of both thought process and social organization can turn the world upside-down for many. So while Goody is clearly successful in locating 鈥渢rends in the evolution of the organization of society,鈥� he is equally certain that these long-term historical changes can not be labeled progress tout court.
If I were to criticize Goody, I would say that The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society is a little too frozen in time, a little too orthodox. Jack Goody was a great historian of long-term changes in the means of communication. But in 1986, he had little to say about the post-literate world we seem to be headed towards. He dismissed the global village idea of McLuhan, yet he doesn鈥檛 take up McLuhan鈥檚 challenge and attempt to understand what happens to the message after the medium changes drastically. After reading Goody鈥檚 Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society, I feel I am left with many questions. Is social media a return from the written/read to the oral/aural? Or perhaps it is only a kind of adventure in the audio-visual universe? Does the fact that people carry phones/cameras and the internet with them at all times point to a world beyond the hegemony of paper, print, and book? Or is this proliferation of data points merely feeding the prerogatives of some new and unnoticed priests and mandarins of the state or economy? Are we becoming more or less of a statistic when we tether ourselves to a satellite in the cloud? It鈥檚 worthwhile to pose these questions, even if anthropology in its current state might still be unable to provide cogent answers.
In sum, if writing does not end oppression and justice but merely gives them what Goody called 鈥渁nother format,鈥� then I have to ask: what formats of oppression and justice can we expect in the imminent post-literate but hyper-graphic age?
June 27, 2023
Super-interesting study. The author attempts to make a cross-disciplinary study of the differences between societies with and without writing. He talks about early uses of writing in religious practice, the economy, affairs of state, and law and cites examples from ancient and medieval societies. His models for societies without writing are somewhat necessarily limited, and further limited to his own experience in Western Africa. Possibly for that reason, he seems a little cautious about drawing conclusions on the influences of writing (or not writing). But overall and interesting and lucid study.
December 21, 2017
丕賱毓賳賵丕賳 噩丿丕賸 賲賴賲 賵 賲賮賷丿 賵賱賰賳 賵賱賱丕爻賮 丕丨賷丕賳 賰孬賷乇賴 丕賱鬲乇噩賲賴 亘丨匕丕賮賷乇賴丕 鬲毓賷賯 賵氐賵賱 丕賱賲毓賳賶 賱賱賯丕乇卅 亘丕賱卮賰賱 丕賱氐丨賷丨 貙 丕賰孬乇 賲賳 賳氐賮 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲丞 賱賱毓乇亘賷賴 鬲毓丕賳賷 賲賳 賴匕丞 丕賱丕卮賰丕賱賷丞 賵 賴賷 毓丿賲 丕賳爻賷丕賯 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘鬲乇噩賲鬲賴 丕賱毓乇亘賷賴 貙 賱賱丕賲丕賳賴 賲賳 丕爻賵丕亍 丕賱鬲乇丕噩賲 賱賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賱賷 賯乇丕卅鬲賴丕 賮賷 丨賷丕鬲賷 賴賷 鬲乇噩賲丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵 丕鬲賲賳賶 丕賱賲爻丐賱賷賳 賮賷 賲卮乇賵毓 賳賯賱 丕賱賲毓丕乇賮 丕丿乇丕賰 匕丕賱賰 賯亘賱 賳賮丕匕 丕賱賭 佶贍 賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲賯乇乇 賱賱胤亘毓
November 15, 2020
賲賳胤賯 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賵鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓
丕氐亘丨鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 賳賵毓 賲賳 兀賳賵丕毓 丕賱賮賳 丕賱乇賮賷毓 賵丕賱賲禺賲賱賷 貙 鬲賲丕乇爻賴 胤亘賯丞 丕賱賲孬賯賮賷賳 貙 亘賷賳賲丕 賮毓賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賮賷 鬲兀氐賷賱賴 賲禺鬲賱賮 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱丕賵賱賷丞 貙 賵賲賳 丕賱氐毓亘 賲毓乇賮丞 賲爻鬲賯亘賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賰賮賳 兀賵 囟乇賵乇丞 孬賯丕賮賷丞 賲鬲賱丕夭賲丞 賲毓 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 亘鬲胤賵乇 兀丿賵丕鬲賴丕 賵丌賱賷丕鬲賴丕 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷丞 貙 賮賲毓 賰賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰賲 丕賱賴丕卅賱 賲賳 丕賱鬲丨丿賷孬 賮賷 丕賱丕丿賵丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賷賲丕乇爻賴丕 廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱賵丕丨丿 賵丕賱毓卮乇賷賳 鬲亘賯賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 丨丕囟乇丞 賵卮丕禺氐丞 賮賷 賰賱 丕賱賲卮丕賴丿 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷丞 貙 賵毓賳氐乇 賲丐孬乇 賮賷 丨賷丕丞 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賵丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 .
丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賱丕 鬲夭丕賱 賲賴丿 丕賱毓賱賲 乇睾賲 丕賱鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 丕賱丕賱賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 胤丕賱鬲 賴匕丕 丕賱賮毓賱 " 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 " 賲賳匕 丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丞 丕賱丕賵賱賶 賱賴丕 賮賷 丕賱丨囟丕乇丞 丕賱爻賵賲乇賷丞 賵丕賱賮乇毓賵賳賷丞 賵亘賯賷丞 丕賱丨囟丕乇丕鬲 賵賮賽賷 卮鬲賶 丕賱賲噩丕賱丕鬲 爻賵丕亍 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 丕賱賲鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱丨賰賲 賵鬲賮乇毓丕鬲賴 兀賵 丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丕鬲 丕賱賰賴賳賵鬲賷丞 賮賷賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱賳匕賵乇 賵鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱賲丿禺賱丕鬲 賵兀賷囟丕 丕賱賯囟丕亍 賮賷賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱毓賯賵丿 賵丕賱丕噩乇丕亍丕鬲 賵丕賱賲乇丕爻賱丕鬲 賵丕賱禺胤丕亘丕鬲 貙 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賰丕賳 賱賴丕 鬲賱賰 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇丕鬲 丕賱賲亘丕卮乇丞 賵睾賷乇 丕賱賲亘丕卮乇丞 賮賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 賵丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 兀丨丿孬 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱賯賵賷 賮賷 鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賵賰匕賱賰 爻丕賴賲鬲 賮賷 鬲毓丿賷賱 丕賱鬲氐賵乇丕鬲 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 爻賵丕亍 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱丕賵乇賵亘賷丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 兀賵 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 丕賱丕爻賱丕賲賷丞 兀賵 睾賷乇賴丕 賲賳 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丕鬲 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丨賵賱 丕賱噩賲丕毓丕鬲 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賵鬲胤賵乇賴丕 .
賴匕丕 丕賱亘毓丿 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賵丕賱丕賳孬乇亘賵賱賵噩賷 賱毓賱賲 賵鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賷賰卮賮 毓賳 賲爻丕賴賲丕鬲 賴匕丕 丕賱賮毓賱 賮賷 丕賱鬲睾賷乇丕鬲 丕賱賴賷賰賱賷丞 賮賷 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賵丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓 賵丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 貙 賮囟乇賵亘 丕賱賲賰丕鬲亘丞 亘賰賱 丕氐賳丕賮賴丕 賵丕賳賵丕毓賴丕 乇爻賲鬲 禺胤 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 毓賳丿 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賵丨丕噩鬲賴 丕賱賮毓賱賷丞 賱鬲賱賰 丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丞 貙 賮賷 卮兀賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賳賮爻賴 賷賰鬲亘 丕賱賮賷賱爻賵賮 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷 噩丕賰 丿乇賷丿丕 " 毓賱賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 " 毓賳 禺賱禺賱丞 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱丿丕禺賱賷 賱賱睾丞 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賮毓賱 丕賱鬲丿賵賷賳 " 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 " 賵賴賵 賲丕 賷賮爻乇 亘賯丕亍 亘毓囟 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱卮賮賴賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲購賲丕乇爻 卮賮賴賷丞 丕賱賰賱丕賲 兀賵 丕賱賱睾丞 賰賳馗丕賲 丕鬲氐丕賱 賵鬲賵丕氐賱 賷丨丕賮馗 毓賱賶 賳睾賲丞 丕賱氐賵鬲 丕賱丕氐賷賱 丕賱賲鬲卮賰賱丞 賮賷 亘丿丕賷丕鬲 丕賱賰丕卅賳丕鬲 賰賱賴丕 貙 賰賲丕 丕賳 亘毓囟 丕賱丕丿賷丕賳 賲丕乇爻鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賮賷 賲乇丕丨賱 賲鬲兀禺乇 賲賳 鬲賰賵賷賳賴丕 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 禺賵賮丕 賲賳 丕賳 賷賰賵賳 丕賱鬲丿賵賷賳 " 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 " 賱毓亘丞 丕賱賲丿賵賳賷賳 亘鬲賱丕毓亘 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 亘丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賵丕賱丿賷賳 貙 賵賯丿 丨丿孬 賮毓賱丕 鬲賱丕毓亘 賵賰丕賳 丕賱禺賵賮 賲亘乇乇 貙 賴賰匕丕 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 毓賳丿 丿乇賷丿丕 賮毓賱 禺賳賯 賱賱睾丞 毓賳丿賲丕 鬲兀胤乇賴丕 賵鬲爻賷賾噩賴丕 亘爻賷丕噩 賲購丿亘亘 賲賲夭賯 賱丕賵氐丕賱 丕賱賱睾丞 丕匕丕 賲丕 丕乇丕丿鬲 丕賱丕賳賮賱丕鬲 賮賷 丕賱賮囟丕亍 丕賱賰亘賷乇 丕賱鬲賷 賳卮兀鬲 賮賷賴 .
爻賵賮 賷賰賵賳 丕賱禺賳賯 賲囟丕毓賮丕 丕匕丕 賲丕 丕鬲噩賴鬲 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 賳丨賵 鬲乇賲賷夭 丕賱賱睾丞 貙 賰賲丕 賴賵 賵丕囟丨 賮賷 丕賱丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲丕鬲 丕賱乇賲夭賷丞 丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丞 賮賷 賯賳賵丕鬲 丕賱鬲賵丕氐賱 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 貙 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲乇賲賷夭 爻賵賮 賷禺賳賯 毓賱賶 卮賮丕賴賷丞 賵賰鬲丕亘賷丞 丕賱賱睾丞 貙 賵賱賷爻 亘毓賷丿丕 毓賳 匕賱賰 賲賯賵賱丞 噩丕賳 噩丕賰 乇賵爻賵 丨賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 丨賷孬 丿毓賶 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 " 廿賲賷賱 " 丕賱賶 丕賱丕毓鬲賳丕亍 亘丕賱賯賵賱 賲賯丕亘賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賱丕賳 賲賲丕乇爻 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賲鬲賯丕毓爻 兀賲丕賲 丕賱禺賷丕賱 賵丕賱丕丨爻丕爻 賵丕賱毓丕胤賮丞 賵賴賵 爻賯賵胤 賮賷 丕賱賮禺 貙 賵丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賳胤賯 賮丕爻丿 賱丕賳賴 丕亘毓丕丿 毓賳 丕賱賮賴賲 丕賱賵丕囟丨 賵丕賱氐乇賷丨 .
亘丕賱賳鬲賷噩丞 賱丕 鬲卮賰賱 亘丿丕賷丕鬲 賮毓賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 丕賱丕賴賲賷丞 丕賱賯氐賵賶 丕賱鬲賷 鬲卮賰賱賴 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨丿孬賴丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賮賷 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 賵鬲亘丿賱丕鬲賴丕 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷丞 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 賵丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 貙 鬲賱賰 丕賱鬲睾賷乇丕鬲 賱賴丕 丕賷囟丕 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇 賳賮爻賴 毓賱賶 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賵賯丿 賷賰賵賳 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲兀孬乇 亘賲爻鬲賵賶 賯鬲賱 賱賮毓賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賳賮爻賴 .
丕氐亘丨鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 賳賵毓 賲賳 兀賳賵丕毓 丕賱賮賳 丕賱乇賮賷毓 賵丕賱賲禺賲賱賷 貙 鬲賲丕乇爻賴 胤亘賯丞 丕賱賲孬賯賮賷賳 貙 亘賷賳賲丕 賮毓賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賮賷 鬲兀氐賷賱賴 賲禺鬲賱賮 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱丕賵賱賷丞 貙 賵賲賳 丕賱氐毓亘 賲毓乇賮丞 賲爻鬲賯亘賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賰賮賳 兀賵 囟乇賵乇丞 孬賯丕賮賷丞 賲鬲賱丕夭賲丞 賲毓 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 亘鬲胤賵乇 兀丿賵丕鬲賴丕 賵丌賱賷丕鬲賴丕 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷丞 貙 賮賲毓 賰賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰賲 丕賱賴丕卅賱 賲賳 丕賱鬲丨丿賷孬 賮賷 丕賱丕丿賵丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賷賲丕乇爻賴丕 廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱賵丕丨丿 賵丕賱毓卮乇賷賳 鬲亘賯賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 丨丕囟乇丞 賵卮丕禺氐丞 賮賷 賰賱 丕賱賲卮丕賴丿 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷丞 貙 賵毓賳氐乇 賲丐孬乇 賮賷 丨賷丕丞 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賵丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 .
丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賱丕 鬲夭丕賱 賲賴丿 丕賱毓賱賲 乇睾賲 丕賱鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 丕賱丕賱賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 胤丕賱鬲 賴匕丕 丕賱賮毓賱 " 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 " 賲賳匕 丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丞 丕賱丕賵賱賶 賱賴丕 賮賷 丕賱丨囟丕乇丞 丕賱爻賵賲乇賷丞 賵丕賱賮乇毓賵賳賷丞 賵亘賯賷丞 丕賱丨囟丕乇丕鬲 賵賮賽賷 卮鬲賶 丕賱賲噩丕賱丕鬲 爻賵丕亍 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 丕賱賲鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱丨賰賲 賵鬲賮乇毓丕鬲賴 兀賵 丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丕鬲 丕賱賰賴賳賵鬲賷丞 賮賷賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱賳匕賵乇 賵鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱賲丿禺賱丕鬲 賵兀賷囟丕 丕賱賯囟丕亍 賮賷賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱毓賯賵丿 賵丕賱丕噩乇丕亍丕鬲 賵丕賱賲乇丕爻賱丕鬲 賵丕賱禺胤丕亘丕鬲 貙 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賰丕賳 賱賴丕 鬲賱賰 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇丕鬲 丕賱賲亘丕卮乇丞 賵睾賷乇 丕賱賲亘丕卮乇丞 賮賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 賵丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 兀丨丿孬 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱賯賵賷 賮賷 鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賵賰匕賱賰 爻丕賴賲鬲 賮賷 鬲毓丿賷賱 丕賱鬲氐賵乇丕鬲 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 爻賵丕亍 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱丕賵乇賵亘賷丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 兀賵 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 丕賱丕爻賱丕賲賷丞 兀賵 睾賷乇賴丕 賲賳 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丕鬲 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丨賵賱 丕賱噩賲丕毓丕鬲 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賵鬲胤賵乇賴丕 .
賴匕丕 丕賱亘毓丿 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賵丕賱丕賳孬乇亘賵賱賵噩賷 賱毓賱賲 賵鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賷賰卮賮 毓賳 賲爻丕賴賲丕鬲 賴匕丕 丕賱賮毓賱 賮賷 丕賱鬲睾賷乇丕鬲 丕賱賴賷賰賱賷丞 賮賷 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賵丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓 賵丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 貙 賮囟乇賵亘 丕賱賲賰丕鬲亘丞 亘賰賱 丕氐賳丕賮賴丕 賵丕賳賵丕毓賴丕 乇爻賲鬲 禺胤 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 毓賳丿 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賵丨丕噩鬲賴 丕賱賮毓賱賷丞 賱鬲賱賰 丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丞 貙 賮賷 卮兀賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賳賮爻賴 賷賰鬲亘 丕賱賮賷賱爻賵賮 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷 噩丕賰 丿乇賷丿丕 " 毓賱賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 " 毓賳 禺賱禺賱丞 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱丿丕禺賱賷 賱賱睾丞 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賮毓賱 丕賱鬲丿賵賷賳 " 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 " 賵賴賵 賲丕 賷賮爻乇 亘賯丕亍 亘毓囟 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱卮賮賴賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲購賲丕乇爻 卮賮賴賷丞 丕賱賰賱丕賲 兀賵 丕賱賱睾丞 賰賳馗丕賲 丕鬲氐丕賱 賵鬲賵丕氐賱 賷丨丕賮馗 毓賱賶 賳睾賲丞 丕賱氐賵鬲 丕賱丕氐賷賱 丕賱賲鬲卮賰賱丞 賮賷 亘丿丕賷丕鬲 丕賱賰丕卅賳丕鬲 賰賱賴丕 貙 賰賲丕 丕賳 亘毓囟 丕賱丕丿賷丕賳 賲丕乇爻鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賮賷 賲乇丕丨賱 賲鬲兀禺乇 賲賳 鬲賰賵賷賳賴丕 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 禺賵賮丕 賲賳 丕賳 賷賰賵賳 丕賱鬲丿賵賷賳 " 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 " 賱毓亘丞 丕賱賲丿賵賳賷賳 亘鬲賱丕毓亘 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 亘丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賵丕賱丿賷賳 貙 賵賯丿 丨丿孬 賮毓賱丕 鬲賱丕毓亘 賵賰丕賳 丕賱禺賵賮 賲亘乇乇 貙 賴賰匕丕 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 毓賳丿 丿乇賷丿丕 賮毓賱 禺賳賯 賱賱睾丞 毓賳丿賲丕 鬲兀胤乇賴丕 賵鬲爻賷賾噩賴丕 亘爻賷丕噩 賲購丿亘亘 賲賲夭賯 賱丕賵氐丕賱 丕賱賱睾丞 丕匕丕 賲丕 丕乇丕丿鬲 丕賱丕賳賮賱丕鬲 賮賷 丕賱賮囟丕亍 丕賱賰亘賷乇 丕賱鬲賷 賳卮兀鬲 賮賷賴 .
爻賵賮 賷賰賵賳 丕賱禺賳賯 賲囟丕毓賮丕 丕匕丕 賲丕 丕鬲噩賴鬲 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 賳丨賵 鬲乇賲賷夭 丕賱賱睾丞 貙 賰賲丕 賴賵 賵丕囟丨 賮賷 丕賱丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲丕鬲 丕賱乇賲夭賷丞 丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丞 賮賷 賯賳賵丕鬲 丕賱鬲賵丕氐賱 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 貙 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲乇賲賷夭 爻賵賮 賷禺賳賯 毓賱賶 卮賮丕賴賷丞 賵賰鬲丕亘賷丞 丕賱賱睾丞 貙 賵賱賷爻 亘毓賷丿丕 毓賳 匕賱賰 賲賯賵賱丞 噩丕賳 噩丕賰 乇賵爻賵 丨賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 丨賷孬 丿毓賶 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 " 廿賲賷賱 " 丕賱賶 丕賱丕毓鬲賳丕亍 亘丕賱賯賵賱 賲賯丕亘賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賱丕賳 賲賲丕乇爻 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賲鬲賯丕毓爻 兀賲丕賲 丕賱禺賷丕賱 賵丕賱丕丨爻丕爻 賵丕賱毓丕胤賮丞 賵賴賵 爻賯賵胤 賮賷 丕賱賮禺 貙 賵丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賳胤賯 賮丕爻丿 賱丕賳賴 丕亘毓丕丿 毓賳 丕賱賮賴賲 丕賱賵丕囟丨 賵丕賱氐乇賷丨 .
亘丕賱賳鬲賷噩丞 賱丕 鬲卮賰賱 亘丿丕賷丕鬲 賮毓賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 丕賱丕賴賲賷丞 丕賱賯氐賵賶 丕賱鬲賷 鬲卮賰賱賴 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨丿孬賴丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賮賷 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 賵鬲亘丿賱丕鬲賴丕 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷丞 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 賵丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 貙 鬲賱賰 丕賱鬲睾賷乇丕鬲 賱賴丕 丕賷囟丕 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇 賳賮爻賴 毓賱賶 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賵賯丿 賷賰賵賳 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲兀孬乇 亘賲爻鬲賵賶 賯鬲賱 賱賮毓賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賳賮爻賴 .
January 25, 2018
Good idea, tepid execution.
January 4, 2019
鈥徺囐嗀з� 賲卮賰賱丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賱丿賶 賴賷卅丞 丕賱亘丨乇賷賳 賱賱孬賯丕賮丞 貙 賵賴賷 兀賳 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 鬲賰丕丿 鬲賰賵賳 丨乇賮賷丞 鬲賲賳毓 丕賱賯丕乇卅 丕賱毓丕丿賷 賲賳 賮賴賲 賲丕 賷賯乇兀 貙 丕賱賵囟毓 鬲丨賵賱 賱賲丨丕賵賱丞 賮賰 胤賱丕爻賲 賵兀賱睾丕夭 !
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.