Thirteen years ago, Chester Brown published Paying For It, a memoir of his experiences between 1999 and 2003 paying for sex work. It's a title Chester Brown hates, incidentally, due to how "paying" can be interpreted in a reprocussional sense in addition to the literal sense, and Chester Brown emerged from his experience as a strong advocate for the social value of sex work. Indeed, I should note at the risk of spoilering this thirteen year old memoir about experiences from over twenty years ago, Chester Brown never really stopped paying for it, he just settled down with a single escort who also has him as her sole client.
Sex work isn't any less of a hot button issue now than it was ten or twenty years ago. But Paying For It is back in print via Drawn & Quarterly with a new paperback edition to tie into the film version of the story that starts playing in theaters this January. The story behind the film version of Paying For It is as intriguingly weird as the original graphic memoir. Sook-Yin Lee was Chester Brown's girlfriend at the start of the memoir- her attempted renegotiation of their relationship with Chester Brown eventually led to his decision to start paying for sex. Despite the perhaps inevitable collapse of this relationship, Sook-Yin Lee has maintained her friendship with Chester Brown over the years and become an advocate for sex work in her own right. Her film version of Paying For It is more of a companion to the graphic novel than a proper adaptation, and one that somewhat ironically solves one of Chester Brown's big issues with the memoir- its inability to empathize as much with the sex worker's perspective as much as he would have liked.
Now, I could explain what I mean by that, but since Chester Brown and Sook-Yin Lee were gracious enough to agree to an interview, I think I'd rather they field that subject. It's great to have you with us, by the way.
-William Schwartz
WILLIAM SCHWARTZ: So, just to phrase this more clearly as a question. Why was the graphic memoir unable to portray the sex workers' perspective as much as would have been ideal?
CHESTER BROWN: Some of the sex-workers I saw were, understandably, tight-lipped about their personal off-the-clock lives. But others were quite open and, casually, in the course of our conversations, told me lots of stuff about their families, their boyfriends, their travels, their childhoods — whatever — all sorts of personal stories and life-details. Much of that would have been great to include in the book. It would have brought the sex-worker characters to life as full human beings. But those sorts of details could have potentially outed them. Let’s say an escort told me a charming anecdote about her dad being, say, a stamp collector. If I'd repeated the specifics of that anecdote in my book, and some member of her family read it and recognized its details, it’s possible that that escort's secret life could have been revealed to her family if she was keeping her activities as an escort confidential. So while I did show them engaging in conversation with me, I had them either talking about sex-work or expressing opinions that are not unusual, and that, hence, wouldn’t be revealing.
Could you please go into detail about how, specifically, the film was able to incorporate the perspective not just of sex workers, but women in general?
SL: When it came out, I was struck by the brilliant utility of Paying For It. My best friend Chester, who is shy and introverted, with no ability to flirt and no desire to be in a romantic relationship, boldly explored paying for sex, treated consensual sex workers with appreciation and respect, and, witnessing their poor working conditions, wrote about it. His book was a taboo-busting take on sex and relationships and an urgent call for the decriminalization of consensual sex work. To me, it went beyond advocating for sex worker rights. It also had to do with labour rights, women's rights, gay liberation, and human rights. I asked Chester if I could make a movie adaptation of his graphic novel, and he agreed because I’m a character in his book and he trusted me to handle the material with care.
The adaptation was a difficult puzzle to solve. The last quarter of his graphic novel features appendices and historic, philosophical, and political notes that are important to his argument for the decriminalization of consensual sex work. I had to figure out a way to incorporate and distill the most important elements of his argument and debate them in a movie through character development, action, relationships, and story arc.
For the first draft, I transcribed the graphic novel verbatim, and neither Chester nor I felt it worked as a film script. Movies and comics are different storytelling forms. Novels tend to allow room for circuitous exploration without resolution. That first draft, like the graphic novel, was episodic, without narrative climax or culmination. Films often follow a three-act structure and concern flawed characters who undergo some kind of transformation. When I said that to Chester, he maintained that he had no flaws, to which I countered, That’s a flaw!
I tried another draft incorporating the appendices and notes, with Chester standing at a pulpit preaching his argument—but it was too didactic. It may have worked as a 1960s French new wave Godard essayist film, but here it didn’t.
Chester’s graphic novel is rendered in a style that is pragmatic and political, purposefully restrained, and with an emphasis on the logic of his argument. I’m more of a hothead, emotionally expressive, and interested in relationships. All of my movies are complicated love stories. I took the movie in that direction.
In his graphic novel, Chester appears cool and detached, whereas I'm intimately aware of his playful, loving, tender, and emotional qualities that are largely absent in the depiction of himself in his autobiographical comics, which lean more toward detached pragmatism, drawing inspiration from comics like Harold Gray’s Little Orphan Annie, where eyes are dots or are hidden behind an opaque pair of glasses. I suspect Chester is inclined toward not giving away too much so that readers can project their feelings on a blank canvas. While I drew inspiration from his comic panel framing for the cinematography, my filmmaking style is warmer than his comics.The movie is a combination of our interests, styles, and perspectives.
In a departure from the book, I wanted to illuminate the sex workers, but Chester would not share details about them. Through research, talking to sex workers, picking up clues from the source material, and mixing them with my imagination, they gradually took on a fuller presence.
On my umpteenth reading of the book, I noticed a small detail—that Chester had visited a sex worker on my birthday. That’s when it clicked. I realised that a key to unlocking the movie adaptation was to expand the canvas to include our life together: how our relationship continued without us ever “breaking up” as we lived together for years in a tiny eleven-foot wide row house, while pursuing very different approaches to sex, connection, and love. Chester paid for sex while I dated, which is more culturally approved of but is not without its challenges.
One of Chester’s main points in the graphic novel is his questioning of possessive romantic monogamy, and through adding more of me as a character in the movie, I could explore those ideas while delving into what was going on beyond the scope of his graphic novel.
I found the approach of deliberate falsification to be quite an intriguing one — mixing up anecdotes in the book with completely different sex workers in the film. Denise's prominence in the film, for example, seems at odds with her request to not be in the book but makes a lot more sense when you understand that her philosophical arguments were made by completely different characters in the book. Did the actual Denise approve of this approach?
SL: I do not see it as “deliberate falsification," but the process of adapting a book to a movie. In the graphic novel, Chester has encounters with 23 sex workers. For a movie, this approach was too episodic and repetitive, without character development, which would make it difficult to get funded, so I focused on what I felt were the most important and revealing sex worker encounters that affected Chester. My aim was to embolden the essence of what he conveyed in his memoir by honing in on key moments and relationships. The real-life “Denise,” who I've never met, was fine with having her graphic novel namesake in the movie, provided that the character bore no resemblance or connection to her. In the movie, "Denise" came to life through research, interviews with sex workers, and picking up clues in the source material, mixed with my imagination.
CB: While Denise gave her approval for us to include a fictionalized version of her character in the film, she wasn’t formally asked if dialogue from a different character in the book could be given to her character. But she was given a draft of the screenplay to read and she didn’t indicate that she had any problems with her portrayal at that stage — or since — although, as I write this, she still hasn’t seen the film.
And I wouldn’t say that the cinematic version of Denise bears NO resemblance to the real one. They’re both smart and beautiful. But beyond that, yeah — there’s not much resemblance.
One person whose permission wasn't necessary for the film version was, of course, your own, Sook-Yin. Most of the new content in the film version of Paying For It is based on the experiences of its director, with boyfriends deliberately falsified in the same way, for the same reason, to protect their privacy. What was the thematic purpose of these conclusions — was there an attempted contrast of paying for sex compared to just looking for it in the wrong places? Or is that itself a loaded way of looking at it? After all, many would describe paying for sex as looking for it in the wrong place, which I assume you would both dispute.
SL: Paying For It, the film, is a double act of portraiture. My aim was to combine Chester’s recollection with my own, so he is referred to in the movie as “Chester Brown.” I took more liberties with the character based on me. She is a work of autofiction. I took seeds from my life experiences and reshaped them into a story. Emily Lê, the actor who plays my alter ego, brought herself to the role, which is also why I called her “Sonny” and not “Sook-Yin.” Calling her “Sonny” offered me some distance to focus on the story and not get bogged down in the details of my life.
I was interested in exploring varieties of love relationships: platonic, filial, romantic, polyamorous, inter-species, and self-love. Chester and Sonny eventually find unique connections while on their separate paths. Their relationship evolves and changes over time, just as my relationship with Chester has in real life.
I hope these questions aren't too presumptuous. The problem is a little unavoidable. Both the memoir and the film are incredibly personal stories, the film moreso in many ways. I suspect, for example, that the depiction of the shared flat is much truer in the film than the memoir, simply because it's literally the same building you both were living in. How in the world did you manage to get permission to film there?
SL: I was working within a tight budget, so I structured the movie to take into account what I could afford. It was a natural fit to shoot in my house, where the real-life events unfolded, because it was mostly production-designed and cheap! I still live there. The only permission required was from me. I cast all the locations as I would characters, finding places that reminded me of the spaces in the book. I called up my friends with era-appropriate apartments, tapped stores, restaurants, galleries, and dive bars in my neighbourhood, and called up my former boss, who let us shoot at his TV station on a weekend. The movie takes place in the late 90s, and my friends' old apartment in Chinatown was perfect for Anne and Amanda’s brothel. They said that they think their place used to be a brothel because strangers have knocked on the door asking if “Lips” still works there. With more of a documentary approach, we used existing locations that exude authenticity. Production designer Olivia D’Oliveira and the art team had a lot to work with and articulated the look of the spaces.
CB: I hope I’m not sounding defensive, but I think the book’s depiction of the places we lived in in those years is pretty accurate. The book starts in 1997, and at that time we were renting what the Brits call a flat — all of the rooms on one level of a house. So the early scenes in the book, in the first chapter, are set in that relatively large apartment. In late 1998, Sook-Yin bought a small row-house in Toronto’s Kensington Market neighbourhood that we moved into, and that’s the house that readers of the book see us living in from chapter 2 until I move out in chapter 23. And that's the house that’s in the film. My depiction of the furniture and how it was arranged in those years — the late ‘90s and early 2000s — is actually more accurate than you see in the film. Nevertheless, the film definitely does give a better sense of the feel of the house and what it was like to live there than my drawings do. Still, the camera can be deceptive. In the first scene where you see the Chester character drawing in the basement, the room looks relatively big, but the camera lens is distorting the space and making that tiny room look larger than it really is.
SL: That first scene where Chester is drawing in the basement is a direct visual quote from the 1668 oil painting by Johannes Vermeer, The Astronomer. Chester is hunched over his desk, working in a shaft of light from a tiny window that looks onto the sidewalk. I composed the shot to mirror the painting because I wanted to convey his ascetic, solitary drawing process. Chester has a timeless quality; he is unconcerned with contemporary trends, and in many ways he reminds me of a classic scholar. Cinematographer Gayle Ye lit his small, cramped room with the same chiaroscuro contrast of light and shadow in the painting. Chester listens to a lot of classical music when he draws, and I leaned into that for the music score. His character is defined by classical inspired music composed by Dylan Gamble and me. Sonny, on the other hand, is sonically portrayed by the diegetic sounds of her work environment, music TV and pop and punk videos. Chester’s scenes are often shot in a static tableau, conveying his calm control, while Sonny’s scenes are frenetic and hand-held. These qualities are meant to reflect their personalities and differences. So rather than going for just literal translations, often I was creating emotional impressions.
The domestic conversations are new to the film. Why was the hoarding of water bottles in the film? Or for that matter, not in the memoir?
SL: The hoarding of the water bottles is what truly happened. I stumbled upon a pile of plastic jugs refilled with tap water in Chester’s room. He is a survivor, born in the year of the rat, with an escape route for any eventuality, including a contingency plan in case we were to ever run out of water. In the screenplay, they are referred to as his “Doomsday jugs." They are particularly poignant in the scene when he empties them in the sewer on the day he moves out of Sonny’s house. The moment is described in the script as "the end of the world.”
The Doomsday jugs were not included in Chester’s graphic novel because they were not an important detail to him. The graphic novel and the movie adaptation are stand-alone companion pieces. Like the classic movie Rashomon, where an event occurs and eyewitnesses weigh in with completely different takes of what happened, Paying For It the graphic novel and Paying For It the film are about the same events told from the different vantage points of two people who used to be a romantic couple.
CB: Yeah, it never even occurred to me to put the water-jugs into the graphic-novel.
How involved were you both with this new Drawn & Quarterly edition of the memoir? I only knew about the filming location because it's in the very detailed notes.
SL: I shared movie stills with Chester and wrote the new introduction to the film edition reissue of Paying For It. That’s it. The rest is his. Chester is a singularly focused cartoonist with no interest in screenwriting or filmmaking. Once he granted me permission to adapt his memoir into a movie, I ran with it and had final say on the film.
In the movie, Chester has a cameo, and in the scenes of Chester drawing, those are his hands. He also drew and designed the opening and ending credit sequences and portraits of the cast. During pre-production rehearsals, he helped read lines opposite the non-actors in the sex worker roles.
CB: I was definitely the one who put together the new edition of the book, although I think it was D&Q editor Tracy Hurren’s good idea to have Sook-Yin write the new introduction. And I asked everyone’s advice about who should be on the cover, and what scene should be depicted there, and whether we should use a photo-still from the film or a drawing. I particularly and repeatedly asked Sook-Yin and Tracy, but also Denise and various other friends. By chance I happened to run into Lea Rose Sebastianis — the actor who plays the first escort — and mentioned that we were considering putting her character on the cover. Her enthusiastic reaction convinced me that I should draw her on the cover. She was delighted with the result.
SL: I like the way your cover art reflects the autofiction of the movie. You drew actor Lea Rose Sebastianis as “Kitty” in a scene from the film during Chester’s significant and liberating first pay for sex encounter. Then you drew yourself, the real Chester Brown, beside her on the bed.
Let's discuss the lead actors. Daniel Bierne is excellent, but this is in part because he seems more human than the rather detached memoir version of Chester. How was he cast? I'd like to ask the same question about Emily Lê, whose performance is impressive and ironic in a completely different way. Her version of Sook-Yin Lee feels surprisingly self-critical.
SL: I auditioned many actors for the role of Chester, and only two actors embodied him with qualities of the real Chester Brown I know and love: gentle, caring, logical, generous, smart, playful, consistent, stubborn, and idiosyncratic.
Dan and Chester share some basic and important personality traits. Dan as “Chester” convinced me of the advantages of paying for sex. Many actors, saying the same lines, came off as jerks, but Dan did not and Chester is the opposite of a jerk. Dan was a fan of Chester's graphic novel and conveyed sensitivity and understanding of the material and for Chester. He was a-ok with full-frontal nudity, which was a bonus!
As an actor, Emily Lê’s emotions are close to the surface, and like me, she comes from an alternative arts background. As first gen Asian Canadians, we share some common experiences that inform some of “Sonny’s” choices.
“Sonny” is an extension of me, and I reveal aspects of myself, flaws and all, which feels to you “surprisingly self-critical”. But it’s true, I am self-critical, and so is “Sonny”. Plus, I wasn’t interested in portraying myself in the most flattering light, which would make for a less accurate and boring movie. There are multiple meanings in the title Paying For It, as Sonny also pays a price.
During Dan and Emily’s chemistry read, they had never met, were in separate cities on separate laptops, and could not see one another. Yet, like “Chester” and “Sonny”, they expressed palpable love together despite putting one another through the ringer. That basis of comfort and care grounds their relationship. When I watched them, I was relieved. I knew that I could make the movie.
For the sex worker roles, I cast non-actors with a nuanced understanding of sex work, lobbying ACTRA, the Canadian actors union, for leniency. Each non-actor is an artist in their own right: musicians, political activists, filmmakers, performance artists, and comedians who embrace sex-positive expression in their work. With this movie, it was important to consider who tells the story and the insight they offer. The union agreed to my casting of non-union actors for the sex worker roles provided I cast the rest of the roles with ACTRA members. Andrea Werhun, who plays “Denise”, is an author, performer, and activist who has previously collaborated with Chester. His graphic novel Paying For It inspired Andrea to write her own memoir, Modern Whore, about her experiences as a former escort, which she is now turning into a feature movie. Chester played the role of a john in her short film Modern Whore and designed the poster. It was a natural fit to cast Andrea as “Denise”. This is her first lead role in a feature movie, and she really shines.
For Chester’s cartoonist pals in his graphic novel, I fictionalised the names and depictions, because his peers who inspired the characters did not want their real names used. I cast actors who evoked similar qualities and brought something extra. And a fourth cartoonist is added, “Laura”, inspired by my friend, cartoonist Jillian Tamaki, and Chester’s peer, cartoonist Nina Bunjavec, and actor Rebecca Applebaum, who plays “Laura.”
In the movie I chart the development of alternative comics, from their scrappy D.I.Y. zine origins to appearing alongside slick comic-con-style corporate superheroes. In the literary market, it used to be that less than 10% of new books were written by women each year in America. Today over 50% are written and published by women. Similarly, what was once a boy’s club is now an alternative comics industry where female identified cartoonists excel.
Additionally, I followed the course of live music television, from my experiences working as a VJ on “MaxMusic” (which is a stand in for “MuchMusic”, Canada’s MTV) and the mainstreaming of “alternative” and “indie” music that gave way to prefab corporate boy bands.
I didn’t want the movie to be an ossified period piece, but a story that connects to today. Questions around sex work, relationships, commercialization and gentrification resonate now more than ever.
CB: I’ll just add that I think Dan, Emily, and Andrea were great in their roles, as were all the other actors. Sook-Yin did a brilliant job in casting the various characters.
Were there any particular scenes you wanted to film, but couldn’t?
SL: I shot everything I wanted and more. I left a lot on the “cutting room floor”--mostly secondary storylines that were tangential and did not inform Chester and Sonny’s relationship. It was easy for me to delete those scenes because they distracted from the central story.
CB: Sook-Yin is forgetting that there was one scene that she wanted to shoot but was unable to. For some bizarre reason, there was supposed to be a scene in which the Chester character tap-dances. But Dan had a mishap in which he sprained an ankle, making it impossible for him to do any sort of dancing. In the scene where the Chester character is walking down an alley on his way to his first encounter with a sex-worker, you can see — if you look for it — that Dan is limping a little bit from that injured ankle.
SL: I think of his injury as a real embodiment of vulnerability– Dan as Chester had to tough it out. But, yeah, I was looking forward to the tap dancing scene because in real life Chester is a very gifted natural tap dancer with an uncanny ability to tap complicated rhythms with his feet.
Though I had to ditch his tap dancing for the movie, I did shoot Dan dancing. On the fly I made adjustments. In the scene, Chester and Sonny celebrate the arrival of a new issue of his Louis Riél comic in the mail; Sonny pulls Chester up from the couch. She cranks one of their favourite tunes from the past, and they dance together in the living room. It’s meant to be a playful, private moment. I framed out Dan's lower body so you could not see that he was supported by the couch. Being the masterful actor he is, Dan convincingly moved his upper body to appear as if he was cutting the rug.
CB: Oh, right – I forgot that there is a dancing scene in the film.
The production process on this film was quite long. I understand you've been working on Paying For It for at least twelve years. What were the biggest challenges, and how did you finally get it ready for the screen?
SL: What took the most time was the scriptwriting, which was years in the making. I’d work on it, put it away, work on it, shut it in a drawer for a year or two, and work on something else. There was no rush to finish, so I let it percolate and take shape at its own speed while I worked on other projects, completing three feature movies, two albums, a play, and podcast series during that time.
Andrea Werhun was a story consultant. She was also a story consultant on Anora, the wildly successful sex work related film written and directed by Sean Baker. Throughout the scriptwriting process, I shared various drafts with Chester and Andrea to make sure the details of the sex work were on point.
For the final iteration, I worked with co-writer Joanne Sarazan until it was right on the page.
When financing came together, we had just 20 days to shoot the film. I went in well-prepared with a detailed shot list, knowing each set up and blocking, and aware that I would have to move quickly with a few takes per set up. Whatever I was not able to get, I gathered afterwards on my own 4K camera, like exterior shots through the seasons, building miniature dioramas, and shooting pickup shots in Chester’s current apartment.
CB: The biggest challenge for me was the strain that the process sometimes put on our friendship. I know that was upsetting for Sook-Yin too. She and I had a few intense disagreements during the process, although we also had lots of laughs during it.
SL: True. Specifically, it was the scriptwriting process that would bring out our inner pit bulls. At times it felt as if he was purposefully obfuscating the story. I understand why he is very protective of his work, but I wanted to make a movie that lets the audience in rather than throwing them off track. When we got our backs up over details, it was stressful, but we worked through those hard moments. I breathed a sigh of relief when Chester finally saw the film and loved it.
How certain are either of you today about the moral defensibility of sex work? Let's say on a scale of one to ten.
SL: I cannot apply a numerical value to a term I do not understand. What does “the moral defensibility of sex work” mean?
There are many kinds of sex work experiences. Paying For It reflects Chester’s point of view. He is an ideal client who tips well and treats sex workers with appreciation and respect. I hope that clients who watch or read Paying For It follow his lead.
In the movie, sex and nakedness are a matter of fact, as engaging as eating a meal or taking a bath. I neither glamourize nor denigrate sex work, but view it through the lens of labour. It can be a difficult job, especially when sex workers are not afforded rights which puts them in harm’s way with no protection.
In my research I interviewed Valerie Scott, who was one of three sex worker rights advocates who successfully struck down anti-prostitution laws, first provincially and then federally, in the Supreme Court of Canada in 2013. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a hollow victory when the government, in 2014, enacted a new law that criminalises paying for sex. Under our current laws, clients are criminalised for paying for sex, and rights and protections continue to be withheld from consensual sex workers.
There is a new case currently being deliberated in the Supreme Court of Canada, brought forth by drivers, contesting charges against them for profiting from sex work by transporting sex workers safely to work. Sex workers are demanding that the case be reframed to include their testimony and perspectives in matters concerning them and their work.
Governments continue to assert control and resist decriminalization of consensual sex work, while the media often conflates sex trafficking and sex slavery with consensual sex work. There should be a distinction made between pay for sex interaction between consenting adults and sex slavery and trafficking, which are coercive crimes against non-consenting and forcibly confined individuals. Conflating them shuts down meaningful consideration and the possibility of empowering consensual sex workers with labour rights that would protect them from harm.
Today, in every major city in North America, sex worker advocacy organisations support consensual sex workers, and now the laws need to catch up. In 2022, sex work was decriminalized in Belgium. Recently, they made new laws which treat sex workers like any other workers– with access to employment contracts, maternity leave, health benefits, pensions and more. Sex worker advocates are approaching this new development with cautious optimism, but it is generally seen as a step forward.
My hope is that the success of sex-work positive movies like Paying For It and Anora will usher in more nuanced portrayals of sex work in cinema. I look forward to seeing more movies made by sex workers and clients that help expand the genre and raise awareness.
In matters of intimacy, connection, and relationships, Paying For It encourages a message of openness, love, and respect, which is very much needed at this time.
CB: What gets called prostitution or full-service sex-work is an idea, a social construct, a structure for a type of relationship between people, often a short-term relationship — perhaps an hour, perhaps ten minutes. But sometimes the structure results in a longer term relationship that lasts months, years, even decades. In itself, the idea seems to me to be neither moral nor immoral — it’s just a framework for people to act in. Of course there are times when people do morally indefensible things within sex-work relationships, just like people sometimes do morally indefensible things within marriages.
Marriage, like prostitution, is also a social construct, a framework for people to act in.
Do I do anything immoral to or with Denise when I spend time with her? Does she do anything immoral to or with me? I don’t think that paying her money for sex is immoral and I don’t think that she's doing anything immoral in accepting money from me and then having sex with me. I try to treat her with consideration and love because I do love her. She wouldn’t use that word — love — to describe her feelings for me, but she does say that she cares for me. Neither of us has ever used physical violence against the other — unlike some husbands and some wives — but I occasionally get upset with her for one reason or another and say hurtful things. She has done the same. As I see it, that’s the closest we’ve gotten to being immoral with each other. And, of course, almost every other couple that’s been sexually active for many years is “immoral” in the same way.
I’ve answered that as if my relationship with Denise is still one of a sex-worker and a client. She actually no longer identifies as a sex-worker, even though I still pay her for sex. I can see her point. Our relationship is now about more than money and sex — it’s developed into something that feels different for both of us than it did when she was an escort with many clients and I was a john seeing various escorts. I don’t think we could pinpoint a specific moment when our relationship transformed from THAT into THIS, whatever “THIS" is. Nevertheless, no matter when our relationship changed into whatever-it-is-now, it was a sex-worker-and-client relationship for some period of time. My question about whether either of us is doing anything immoral was asked in the present-tense, but it applies just as much to the period in time in the past when we were sex-worker-and-client.
It was great speaking with you. And congratulations. Paying For It is finally seeing its general theatrical debut in Canada this coming January 31st.
The post Sook-Yin Lee with Chester Brown on the story behind the film version of <i>Paying For It</i> appeared first on The Comics Journal.
Hello, my name is Jack Sparrow. I'm a 50 year old self-employed Pirate from the Caribbean.
No comments:
Post a Comment