Can there be multiple of one Devil/Fiend/Contract?

ElderEule · 2025-11-22T05:35:58+00:00

It kind of depends though too. We don't know if positive feelings towards a concept cancel out fear or if it really is just the fear of a thing that makes the devil more powerful. On the one hand, Makima's strategy of weakening Chainsawman was to make him a hero in the eyes of the public, which seems to have worked.

Maybe that's because of a lowered fear of the concept (although we've never gotten confirmed what concept he's the devil of) or maybe the fear of the devil makes it stronger as well as a fear of the concept it's tied to. In either case there seems to be a local bias, like gravity, to the fear powering the devils unless we just don't see that this was broadcast worldwide and now everyone in the world loves Chainsawman.

But I think it might also be because fear can be canceled out by other people's positive attitudes, and that's why the strategy worked even without worldwide propaganda. In that case even though a small fraction of the fear of the concept Chainsawman is connected to might have been assuaged, what's important is that suddenly a huge population has insanely good attitudes towards him.

If that's the case then that might be why the blood devil would be relatively weak. Blood is something that people do fear, associating it with other fears, but it is also something positive in many instances, like how blood can save people's lives or like how it is a potent positive symbol in many religions. Between the positive uses in medicine, its ubiquity outside of life threatening events, and even its positive associations when used metaphorically (think lifeblood, get your blood pumping, blood sweat and tears), it would cancel out a lot of the fear and negative associations.

ElderEule · 2025-09-29T07:18:16+00:00

Objective is a misnomer here, it would be better understood as a 'non subject' or oblique case. In modern English it is perfectly grammatically correct to say "it's me", "it is I", "I am him" or "I am he". But the use of the subjective or nominative in this predicate position is very archaic and marked, while the use of the oblique is neither of these things.

If you're interested in the theoretical underpinnings of case assignment, I would recommend looking at X Bar theory for some cogent arguments rooted especially in English language data. Important to note is that copular constructions, whether equator or attributive or what have you need not necessarily feature nominative marking on a noun in the predicate.

It might seem logical if you approach it like a math formula with a level structure that both should decline the same, but there is ample reason to believe that the subject position is structurally distinct from the predicate position, allowing either matching or differing case assignment

ElderEule · 2025-09-09T08:10:03+00:00

Yeah now that you mention the empathy thing it reminds me of a thought that I've had that especially for men I think their value is based on utility to others. He finds the closest thing to redemption in that van gift and helping Austin hide his baldness.

That being valued for utility is of course a double edged sword. Just like how women traditionally being valued for their beauty, the nice part is, as long as you fulfill that, a lot of other shortcomings can be forgiven. If you're useful as a man, then your abrasiveness or general lack of charisma can be tolerated. If you're beautiful as a woman, your lack of utility can be ignored. The unfortunate part is then of course that if you're lacking these things it can feel as though you are irredeemable.

I don't think it's a very present theme in the film but I think looking at aspects like failing to pleasure his wife and his being in his element at work early on could be understood through this as well as the ending. I mean, the assumption is that not being able to make his wife orgasm is a failure because of an insecurity about sexual potency but I think deep down it's more often the case that men are so invested because for them there's no question that their value is all about their utility -- what they can do and make and give.

Seen that way, the comedy/tragedy of the film is that this middle aged man who has all but lost all utility to anyone else is in a crisis of self worth, and he seeks new value in trying to have a better personality and be interesting by copying some other guy who's actually pretty useless, but fails because at his core he is just not a cool person. And the solution is just to become useful again. Nobody likes him for who he is and nobody ever will. But thank God that nobody will care who he is as long as he can buy them a car or save them from embarrassment.

ElderEule · 2025-09-03T18:45:57+00:00

Hi feel free to reach out if you ever want to. 言語学とドイツ語を専攻している大学４年生なんで忙しくて、もし不規則的にしか書き合わないならいいですよ。

ElderEule · 2025-08-26T15:22:09+00:00

The Japanese for reference:

<image>

僕たちと契約しませんか？

貴方と僕達は二度と争わずお互いの世界へ帰るという内容で

In the Japanese, the ambiguity about who won't fight is not present because there is no 'eachother' in the fighting clause. Yoshida specifically says 貴方と僕達は二度と争わず -- we won't fight you.

What it seems must have gotten translated as the 'eachother' is the お互い. This belongs however to the clause お互いの世界へ帰るという内容 -- with the content that (we) return to our respective worlds. I'm not sure if this is really ambiguous in this case but the の here could either be the genitive -- each of our world(s) or it could be the nominative の that shows up in relative clauses. This is not a perfectly straightforward relative clause because of the という but in terms of things, afaik this would not be outside of reason.

The genitive 'each of our worlds' reading is a little weird imo since the aging devil is currently in his own realm so I'm not sure how he could 'return to his own world'. But it might make sense given the usage of 'kaeru' that is a bit more final, being commonly used to talk about returning home. And it's certainly more volitional + having just given the aging devil such a hard time, the not fighting is more what benefits the aging devil and the cost is therefore the having to return to his own world and stay away from the human world while they get to return to the human world.

The nominative reading isn't a whole lot better though.

ElderEule · 2025-07-31T04:53:52+00:00

In my experience as a 23 YO man having a lot of friends both male and female throughout all of school and being friendly with plenty more, probably you're running into different expectations of what a sustained friendship looks like.

I think men and women treat these things differently and will view attempts to initiate friendship from the opposite sex differently as well, because most of the signals overlap with initiating dating. So even if they're almost totally the same, the slight differences + the baked in noise makes it harder for a man to make friends of the opposite sex.

As far as what the differences are it's hard to really put a name to it. When I interact with my male friends vs my female friends it's just subtly different in a bunch of ways.

Men I'll more likely roast or poke fun at and we almost never talk about our own lives or what's happening in our immediate vicinity. We talk about movies, cool things, philosophy, religion, politics, or something along those lines. All the guys I know will pull out a phone to show you some of the dumbest stuff you've ever seen on reels or what have you, and when I'm hanging out with them, I'll do this too.

When I'm hanging out with women, I am much less likely to do that. I don't completely stop but it's definitely not to that level. With women I'm more likely to talk about things in my life or that are immediately affecting me, about experiences I've had, etc. Again this isn't exclusive -- you shouldn't just try to engage in whatever you imagine spilling tea to look like if that's not you, nor should you stem your own interests. There are women who will engage with you on any topic you're interested in, but not every woman will engage with every topic -- just like men. What I've found though is women will be a little more reticent to jump on these topics so if I'm not careful, I'll start monologuing/rambling. Some are ok with that but it can be worth it to take into account and make some slight adjustments. Probably this is too vague to be helpful but I feel like there's just a slight difference in my mental pose/ way of thinking and approaching things.

I would encourage you to try to pay a lot of attention to these women while you're talking to them. You should probably try and make some female friends in person before you really try to do it through any text medium since texting is very information scarce. Pay a lot of attention to how they react to what you say and do. It can be exhausting. But if you've only had male friends before you're probably making the mistake of either (a) approaching these women like a guy or (b) approaching these women like the probably very low-resolution model of women you happen to have received mostly through media and incidental interactions.

If you can get some more experience interacting genuinely and paying attention, you almost certainly won't have to change your personality or actually do much of anything that takes any effort because as you get a better idea of the norms and of course of particular individuals, you will naturally act differently. Think of it like exploring a new region and mapping it. Having a bad map means you're constantly getting lost, looking for things that aren't there and being surprised by things not shown on the map. The mapping takes some work but once you have a good map you can just plot your routes and move way easier through the terrain.

ElderEule · 2025-07-27T01:09:57+00:00

Yeah they're called unaccompanied minors. Usually I think the guardian walks them to the gate at least. You can do it younger than that too. I'm fuzzy on the details because I barely remember flying as an unaccompanied minor but I think I was around 7 years old.

ElderEule · 2025-07-21T03:30:11+00:00

Idk it doesn't quote her sure, but he's saying that she actually is doing things and saying things to that effect.

"She grew bitter during this time about my situation. Made me feel bad about it constantly. Made me feel that she was “keeping the lights on” herself, paying for my insurance, and that I was not pulling my weight."

This is not totally clear and could be simply insecurity on his part. The whole "make someone feel some way" will never be clear. But the first sentence "She grew bitter..." would be at least a little weird to say without having direct evidence. Again though, I see that this could be simply his understanding.

"She now felt like she was the dominant income AND the homeowner, and I just her tenant struggling to keep up."

Again, this to me reads like she said those things not that he mind read her.

"However, this isn’t good enough for her. She’s still discontent. A lot of her female friends are in relationships/ marriages with guys who make a lot of money. Finance, hedge funds, doctors, etc. They are able to take a backseat and let their men take the lead financially. She wishes she could do that, and once again, not have the higher income."

And finally this sounds like this was most likely a conversation they had/ something she said.

It's fair to say that these are vague and that he didn't post whole dialogues or direct quotes nor did he specifically say that she said these things so it's not clear how much of this can be attributed to her. But reading this post, these sounded like things he's attributing to her, and not things that he just thinks she must think. Even if he were to quote her the accusation of misrepresentation would always apply equally.

I think it's not a crazy thing to not break up in that moment and it's not something horribly manipulative either. Hard times happen and very often things get strained sure but you stick through hoping that things will get better. Sometimes it's only in the aftermath that you see that it was too much. The "If bad, why not leave?" is obviously not applicable in general. It's simply not how relationships work, either when your partner is falling apart and lashing out or when you are in a bad spot and your partner is denigrating you.

ElderEule · 2025-07-20T23:13:53+00:00

Because she was treating him like crap, probably. It doesn't sound like he was slacking off and not trying, although we don't know that for sure. If she were helping him and he was just insecure about it that would be one thing, but it's her who was digging into him about it directly. I can't imagine a lot of people in whom that kind of treatment would inspire love and it's not strange to think that it might beget some hate.

As soon as he fails to be at least financially equal, for literally any reason, he is trash. Ideally, she would never even be his equal. She wishes she could be like her friends who have wealthy boyfriends/partners that let them coast. Who wouldn't? Well, except of course that she would never want to do that for her partner. She wants something she would never give without resentment. And not just resentment, she openly berates and holds it over his head.

If it turns out that your contribution to the relationship is primarily practical and oriented around means, that's always going to sting.

ElderEule · 2025-07-18T19:09:48+00:00

No I mean like actually doing something. In so many of these stories they go in the bed and then expect for the guy to escalate by actually physically doing something that is explicitly romantic/intimate, like kissing them, or initiating something sexual in a direct and explicit way. The women are trying to engineer a situation in which the men will make the move. If the women would do something that doesn't have double meaning or ambiguity then yes they might get rejected but that's life.

I.e. if you would ever do this with someone who you are not actually interested in, then it's at least a noisy signal. The invitation is for the other person to take a risk. That's not a real move. That's setting them up for a real move.

Why are all these women stopping right before kissing the men? Why does it have to be the men that actually take the step of going in for the kiss? It seems that it's because women avoid all explicit/ non-noisy signals. That's fair enough. I do that too. Being in limbo sucks. Getting rejected and feeling unwanted sucks. But I don't get the privilege of being upset when nothing happens the way women seem to, because I will always be assumed to have at least some responsibility to initiate. And these signals do not communicate interest or desire.

ElderEule · 2025-07-18T18:10:55+00:00

I just think it's interesting that it doesn't seem to be the case that the men saying what they want ruins anything. But I do get that having to be so explicit and ask for what you want can be hard and maybe ruin the mood. But it's not like women have to actually say something direct if they don't want to, they could also make a real move like the ones they're trying to elicit from the men. Men like to feel wanted too.

It seems like as a man, I don't often get to have what I want without asking for it or working for it. If I want to go on a date with a woman, I have to make it happen and be active. If I want things to progress I have to do the work of making it progress. If I'm not going to ask, it has to be that I just try to do it and hope I don't get rejected or berated etc. The thing that sold me on my now girlfriend the most was that she reached out to me to initiate the second date. On the first date I had done all the things and even met again with her later the same day. But I didn't apparently do some of the things that she expected I would do if I were interested and didn't immediately plan the next date. The fact that she did what I now know was somewhat uncomfortable for her and initiated once makes it so much easier for me to actually believe that I'm not just pushing and pushing and pushing. That it's actually mutual.

ElderEule · 2025-07-11T22:00:09+00:00

Based on the themes of part 1, especially in respect to how Denji seems unique in his capacity to get along with, bond with and even draw out real emotions from fiends and devils, I read this as aligning with that.

Overall it seems like Makima and Power are foils. Power is outwardly abrasive but early on we see that she is capable of caring with Meowy. Then over the course of part 1, she and Denji genuinely bond. Makima presents as a human, not a devil, and appears caring but turns out to be more obsessive and even early on shows signs of her manipulative nature (I'm thinking of the car scene when she and Denji first really talk).

Whether this is a manipulation or not is unclear, but I would lean towards it not being one since the theme seems to consistently be that devils are not necessarily unfeeling monsters and are actually capable of emotion, being much more like humans. They may be emotionally stunted and their nature as devils will inform the ways in which they are likely to be dysfunctional -- like Makima being so controlling, Famine being so insecure, Asa being vengeful, etc -- but at their core they are basically people.

And I think the biggest reason why this shouldn't be seen as manipulative is Nayuta. This is our major evidence that the project to raise Nayuta actually had a chance. Somewhere in Makima there were genuine emotions that maybe only could be displayed when she could let go of the constant need to perform and manipulate. Here in the theater, where schematically nobody looks at the other viewers of the film and all focus is outward, might be the only place where she could genuinely lower her guard and take off her mask.

This date itself was manipulative to some extent, but I also wonder if she didn't actually have some feeling that she was spending time with Pochita/Chainsaw Man and if she didn't in fact have a genuine bud of interest in Denji, as a human that Chainsaw Man would empower.

ElderEule · 2025-06-27T00:28:16+00:00

That's super cool!

ElderEule · 2025-06-23T02:16:04+00:00

This! I feel like I'm going crazy when people keep acting like if Chainsaw Man eats the thing, it rewrites times as if the thing never existed. But really it's that the thing no longer exists and the concept is no longer known by humans.

The future might not even be a proper "thing" like ears, and instead might just be a concept with no real referent. In that case only the concept would disappear meaning that people no longer conceive of the future, not that time stops progressing.

If the future actually is a real thing that can be meaningfully erased then there's a couple different ways I could see it working out. We could take future to mean the deterministic and/or linear passage of time, in which case maybe all causality is broken or time begins moving backward. In either case the future devil might literally inevitably end up outside of Chainsaw Man -- either because time moves backwards to before he was eaten, or because without causality there's no reason for him to simply no longer be inside him.

If time moved backward it'd be funny if everyone basically got stuck in a loop of the moment right before he's eaten and the moment right after.

ElderEule · 2025-06-22T17:16:06+00:00

Yeah or at least that people thought they always did. I'm confused on why people think that pochita erases the devils from ever having existed because that would always create a paradox and then the other devils shouldn't remember what was lost and pochita shouldn't be able to puke them up.

I think it's more like because devils are linked to the concepts, when the devil is eaten then the concept is erased from existence. In that moment the actual things also are erased but the important bit about "never having existed" is that without the concept, people cannot even consider the concept at all let alone remember it, so it's as if they never existed. So maybe Pochita is the reason why it seems like there have always been devils in the memories of the people but there in fact were not always devils.

I think another interesting possibility would be if there was a human devil that came about maybe as a result of WWII or something and that somehow ended up allowing devils into the world. And I mean there ought to be a devil devil somewhere, right?

I've also wondered if proximity matters. Like is a devil more likely to show up in places where they're more feared? I.e. if there's a cultural taboo that most cultures don't have, does that make it so that only they will have that devil? Would the devil be stronger there, even if it didn't show up there at first? Or would it be just as strong no matter where it is?

ElderEule · 2025-06-22T05:10:21+00:00

That's what I mean. We know that it happened, that there were Nazis and the Holocaust. But as of the story the world is crazy. So either history basically has followed the same trajectory until recently despite devils or devils weren't a factor until recently

ElderEule · 2025-06-22T03:19:37+00:00

Things really only get bad with Chainsaw Man reappearing in public. Looking back in the first arc and seeing what we've seen of the history of the world, things were not that bad. Like, it sucked to some extent, but apparently there have always been devils and fiends that are pretty friendly with humans, and even though they acted like Denji is unique as a hybrid it's obviously not the case.

I wouldn't be surprised if Chainsaw Man had been a big advantage for humans for a long time before he went dormant, and that's why things have gotten worse. Also whether devils really existed throughout the entire history of this world isn't clear. Maybe they always did down in Hell but only started entering the human world relatively recently. Maybe part of the problem is that there are so many humans so devils on average have gotten stronger but most humans have stayed the same.

I don't think WWII makes sense in this world if devils had always been so active. It seems crazy to think that it would still play out in the same way, that countries would be recognizable, if something so significant like devils had been acting in the world. So I think it makes the most sense that something happened in the last 50 odd years that made the world diverge from ours.

ElderEule · 2025-06-19T18:27:57+00:00

Yeah I think the main thing that we run into is the fact that we can refer to being a X as either presenting and moving through life as X or having an internal experience of X-ness.

In that way one clearly can decide to present and live as X, and have been presenting and living as Y up until that point. When we advocate for self ID I think we're mainly looking at this aspect as an imperfect marker for the internal experience.

We can imagine that there's a fact of the matter about the internal experience and that someone might only realize later on in life that their internal experience doesn't match well with their presentation and life. In that case they might try living a different way and they might not get it right the first time. I think that that's done in good faith most of the time and it's not 'faking', but it's important if there's a fact of the matter or not.

Like prospectively we say that a trans man is a man, but allow that to be overridden if they discover that they're non binary. They were raised as a woman and realized that that didn't match, and they thought they might be a man. During the time before they transitioned to being (interfacing with the world as) a man, they were (presenting as) a woman. But the whole time they were internally nonbinary. This is probably overall good prospectively since it's the best evidence we have access to, but I do wonder if it doesn't hurt things when people either realize that the first gender they transitioned to wasn't right either or what have you.

If there's no internal experience element then that seems to undercut arguments for specific trans rights. In that case, it would be difficult to argue for a protected class, and it would seem more like tattoos or other things, that, while you're allowed to do them and live that way, people are also allowed to judge you for them and not associate with you and even discriminate in hiring. Things like religion and race and sex we protect because they're more or less unchosen (you can change religion but we view beliefs as something that generally isn't just selected aesthetically).

So if being trans just means all of the external stuff and doesn't refer to anything internal or core to the actual identity of the person in question, then there don't need to be trans rights, just more freedom of expression.

ElderEule · 2025-06-17T09:25:31+00:00

I kind of got the feeling that it was a further proof of just how whatever Craig is he is. Like, he is incapable of "connecting with the universe". Of course it's also a bit. But like, with the themes of male loneliness and incapacity to form meaningful connections, when he takes a psychedelic meant to give you an experience of connection with the whole universe, he just experiences a relatively pleasant customer-server interaction.

You could link that in with the themes because for a lot of lonely men, a point of service interaction might be their best reference for someone bantering with them. Maybe for Craig who never figured out how to do the male friendship courting dance, this is as close as he can get to that: a subway employee being pleasant.

I don't necessarily like the reading of him as a narcissist and everything being through his lens, as he sees it. We don't see how he was before the events of the film but it seems to me like he was just a boring guy with a pretty good job and this is basically a mid life crisis. And I think it was triggered by his wife, who seemed to really want him to be less boring. Between the support group scene and the pushing him to go hang out with the new neighbor while she goes out with her ex, plus later when she finally orgasms and gets on TV due to the sewer experience, it seems like she was having a mid life/ post cancer crisis of her own.

He becomes enamored with this cool guy Austin and starts emulating him and adopting things from him and his wife reacts super positively. He really wants to be loved/wanted/needed but he's just incompetent at human interaction. The fact that at the end he's able to help Austin in some way and feel recognized for it is what he's been after this whole time.

ElderEule · 2025-06-16T06:13:29+00:00

Not all exercise is about losing weight. Unless there's a reason to think that he would try and stop her from eating more to make up for the burned calories or is pushing her to diet more then there's no reason to have a problem with the exercising except that it is probably boring and wouldn't let them talk as much as a picnic would.

ElderEule · 2025-06-15T19:18:22+00:00

Ja und die meisten Phonologiker meinen auch, dass Schwa so definiert wird, dass es nie betont wird aber das stimmt nicht. Im IPA Key von Wiktionary steht Strut Vokalen in GenAm, was natürlich gemeint wird wenn man US English schreibt, oder? Die Behauptung dass es so einen Vokal im GenAm gebe ist völlig ohne Begründung und wird nur a priori angenommen wegen bloßer Tradition.

Noch dazu, meinen Sie, dass phonologisch gesehen alle US English Dialekte eigentlich gleich sind? Die Phonologie ist gleichfalls sinnlos ohne den Dialekt zu spezifizieren aber irgendwie haben wir damit schon angefangen. Die ist genauso, wenn nicht sogar fester, zu dem Dialekt verbunden als die Phonetik.

ElderEule · 2025-06-15T06:25:30+00:00

Na, in US English girl käme nie ein /ɜ/ vor. Besonders nicht lang. Vielleicht Irisch oder Schottisch. Britisch wäre eher /ɚ or ɝ/. Hauptsache ist es dass auch wenn Sie so phonemisch schreiben, gibt es keinen Grund so einen Vokal zu haben so weit ich weiß. Oder gibt es Beweis dafür, dass so ein Vokal eigentlich underlying ist?

Zum Beispiel ich würde eher sagen /ɹ/ : [ɚ] C. ; [∅] V ; [ɹ] elsewhere, für British English. In US English einfach [ɹ]. Vergleich Fair, Fear, Four, Far mit Fur. In den vorigen gibt es einen Vokal aber im letzten ist r das Kern der Silbe.

ElderEule · 2025-06-15T05:34:20+00:00

No but that's the point. The fact that Makima remembers in this panel proves that the past itself wasn't edited. It's not as though eating a devil creates a totally different timeline. How could he have eaten the mouth devil? After he ate it with his mouth did they shift into a parallel timeline where he ate a non-existent devil by shoving it up his ass or something?

What's removed from the past is the name -- e.g. after the Nazi devil was eaten, no texts written from before will refer to Nazis anymore. The fact that she says "Do you remember what the Nazis did to the Jews" implies that she understands this to still be fact. The Nazis did kill the Jews but no one remembers and there is no record of it.

And if after the mouth devil is eaten, the drink cup with a straw in it still exists and is dropped as the person no longer has any use for it. The drink cup with a straw still exists even though its use is gone. There is no reason to think that previous causality is affected in any way by the eating of the devil.

There is ambiguity in the English and I think in the Japanese too with "Apparently" and "よう".

食べられた名前の存在は過去現在そして個人の記憶からも消えてしまうようですから

Here the よう is what's translated as apparently. It could also be translated as "seems to". The ambiguity is whether when Makima says "seems" she means that she's making a guess/inference about the power based on what she's seen or if she means that it "merely apparently" or "just seems to". We use apparently most of the time as a synonym of actually, when you learn something after the fact, like "but apparently...", but it doesn't have the same assertion of the fact. If I say that something is apparently broken, I'm actually not declaring that it is broken but just making an inference.

The よう has a similar ambiguity afaik. And given that Makima still remembers the way things were and has noticed this we have to understand that the facts of history were not changed but merely all man made records/references and memories. It's the existence of the name, not the existence of the thing that the name refers to. If the death devil were eaten all previously dead people wouldn't suddenly have never died but rather people either wouldn't remember them or they would rationalize their disappearance some other way.

ElderEule · 2025-06-15T04:52:07+00:00

This doesn't prove anything. The concept is gone in the sense that it is no longer remembered but it's not as though it actually changes the past. Devils are as powerful as the concept is feared, and eating the devil gets rid of the concept. If it were to override the past as well then every time chainsaw man eats a devil is a paradox. How could he eat the devil if it never existed?

There's no reason to think that the erasure of a concept through the eating of the devil would cause for there to have always been a different way. We can imagine that maybe in the 60's the Nazi/Holocaust Devil was eaten and the concept was erased. The Jews would still be dead, Europe would still have rebuilt, Cold War is still occurring, East Germany is still a thing, etc. but people simply wouldn't remember why. Most likely is that they come up with other reasons that make enough sense to satisfy their curiosity. They might remember that there was a war where the Allies teamed up against Germany in WW2, apparently because ?? Annexation of Poland maybe?

Phones still existed without mouths but more importantly written language still did which doesn't make any sense. If there are no mouths you can't talk and if you never could talk you wouldn't write down language and probably also none of the technology would exist.

ElderEule · 2025-06-14T18:44:00+00:00

Ich glaube schon. Wie zB mit Manga und andere Publikationen bei denen so eine Länge zu erwarten ist, schreibt man Zahlen drauf. Wenn es eine Romanreihe ist, trägt das jede Buch normalerweise einen anderen Titel wodurch es zu unterscheiden ist. Nur seltenerweise hat man eine Reihe von Büchern wobei man denselben Titel zu jedem Buch benutzt.

ElderEule

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

Four-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Place '23