![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
SV: Splinter as foreshadowing?
I don't believe in destiny, but I do believe in foreshadowing. When I rewatched "Splinter" last week in light of "Reckoning" and "Lockdown," I noticed a few things that may be foreshadowing upcoming developments in the season, especially in the Lex/Lana relationship.
Spoilers through Vengeance
"Lana, Lex, Lies"
"If I told you the truth and something happened to you, I'd never forgive myself," Lex says to Lana in Splinter, when she wants to know the truth about the spaceship. Isn't *that* an interesting quotation to be coming out of Lex's mouth, especially given the events in "Reckoning." But it's not just foreshadowing "Reckoning," it's more immediately foreshadowing "Lockdown."
In "Splinter," Lex initially tells Lana that he didn't tell her about the spaceship because he's protecting her. Knowledge about the spaceship, he says, is dangerous--"people have killed for a lot less." Lana suspects he's bullshitting her because he wants her knowledge of the spaceship, and at the time it seemed a reasonable assumption. However, it turns out Lex was right: knowledge of the spaceship *did* put Lana in danger--both she and Lex almost got killed for that knowledge in "Lockdown."
Furthermore, the fact that Lex will trust Lana, rather than lying to protect her, is also spelled out directly in "Splinter", where he tells her that he had to stop protecting her because he couldn't lie to her anymore, and he knew that she was searching for the answers haunting her since her parents died. (Again, in "Splinter" this is delivered as fakery--Lex actually makes this response to try to avoid answering hard questions from Lana--but in "Lockdown" we see he was actually telling the truth, in that classic piece of Lex misdirection).
Lana's attitude towards being protected is split: on the one hand, as in "Lockdown," she is drawn to the equality of her relationship with Lex; each takes turn being the protector of the other. This is the adult Lana, and one of the many reasons why Lana's relationship with Clark is doomed to fail. On the other hand, part of her still wants (and needs) to be protected, and that is the part of her that was drawn to Clark's revelation of his secret in "Reckoning." But ultimately (even if Clark had changed the past in a different way), she needs more equality in her relationships. (I've figured out that's why I liked her first scene with Lex in Reckoning: even though she wasn't necessary very *good* at it, she stepped up to try to protect Clark's secret. She does want to be able to protect the people she loves, not merely be protected by them).
Clark's fears, Clark's fists
"I don't know what you did to trick Lana into believing she was in love with you." This is Clark's accusation to Lex while he is under the influence of silver K in "Splinter." He fears that Lana will betray him, just as Lex has--though her betrayal would be the double betrayal of consorting with Clark's enemy. And this does seem to be coming true: every episode since Splinter has moved a step closer to Lexana. I suspect that what Splinter is predicting is that Clark is never going to be able to accept this relationship as real, and that this will somehow lead to full-out war between Lex and Clark. ("I don't want to hurt you, Clark." "But I want to hurt you.")
"If I'd have killed Lana...." (Clark in "Splinter") Clark does, as it turns out, kill Lana in "Reckoning"--or at least, he contributes to her death. (Interesting that in Splinter he *also* almost kills his dad, and attacks Lex, saying that he wants to hurt him. ) Splinter predicts that he cannot live without Lana--you'd never forgive yourself, Professor Fine tells him. And in fact, the decision he makes in "Reckoning" does show he can't bear to be the one responsible for her death. Does this mean he'll never forgive himself for his contribution to Jonathan's death?
"Those Kents, they pack quite a punch." (Lionel Luthor, "Splinter") Here he's talking to Lex, whom Clark has bruised pretty badly; but this statement also foreshadows Jonathan's death. It would be interesting to trace the significance of all the punches this season. Clark punching Lex in "Mortal" signalled the start of open hostilities between them. Everyone was rightly critical of him immediately after that episode for continuing to punch Lex when he was down. This is not the action of a hero, but it is definitely the instinctive response of a Kent (at least a Kent male raised by Jonathan!). Will Clark ever learn that his father died striking his enemy in anger? I think he *must* learn that, sometime in the future, because I think it will be one of the things preventing him from striking a similar future blow at Lex, which would not destroy him physically, but would do so morally.
Actually, I wonder if Clark would have been capable of saving Lionel's life in "Vengeance" had he known the truth about Jonathan's death. Will he ever find out? Will he be tempted not to save him in the future, especially once Lionel starts his seduction of Martha in earnest?
Predicting the future?
"Lana Lang will never love you, son." This is from the end of "Splinter," in the scene with Lionel and Lex. Is this foreshadowing? Or maybe just a warning from Lionel, as part of the deep game he's playing this season?![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
latxcvi has been talking about the slow progression of Lexana this season, how they are actually taking time to build an organic relationship between them, and I think that's true, as I have sketched out, a little, above. I agree that Lexana is only going to work for the viewers to the extent that there is mutual desire between them, so I really *hope* that this is just Lionel's usual mindfuck, and *not* foreshadowing.
Spoilers through Vengeance
"Lana, Lex, Lies"
"If I told you the truth and something happened to you, I'd never forgive myself," Lex says to Lana in Splinter, when she wants to know the truth about the spaceship. Isn't *that* an interesting quotation to be coming out of Lex's mouth, especially given the events in "Reckoning." But it's not just foreshadowing "Reckoning," it's more immediately foreshadowing "Lockdown."
In "Splinter," Lex initially tells Lana that he didn't tell her about the spaceship because he's protecting her. Knowledge about the spaceship, he says, is dangerous--"people have killed for a lot less." Lana suspects he's bullshitting her because he wants her knowledge of the spaceship, and at the time it seemed a reasonable assumption. However, it turns out Lex was right: knowledge of the spaceship *did* put Lana in danger--both she and Lex almost got killed for that knowledge in "Lockdown."
Furthermore, the fact that Lex will trust Lana, rather than lying to protect her, is also spelled out directly in "Splinter", where he tells her that he had to stop protecting her because he couldn't lie to her anymore, and he knew that she was searching for the answers haunting her since her parents died. (Again, in "Splinter" this is delivered as fakery--Lex actually makes this response to try to avoid answering hard questions from Lana--but in "Lockdown" we see he was actually telling the truth, in that classic piece of Lex misdirection).
Lana's attitude towards being protected is split: on the one hand, as in "Lockdown," she is drawn to the equality of her relationship with Lex; each takes turn being the protector of the other. This is the adult Lana, and one of the many reasons why Lana's relationship with Clark is doomed to fail. On the other hand, part of her still wants (and needs) to be protected, and that is the part of her that was drawn to Clark's revelation of his secret in "Reckoning." But ultimately (even if Clark had changed the past in a different way), she needs more equality in her relationships. (I've figured out that's why I liked her first scene with Lex in Reckoning: even though she wasn't necessary very *good* at it, she stepped up to try to protect Clark's secret. She does want to be able to protect the people she loves, not merely be protected by them).
Clark's fears, Clark's fists
"I don't know what you did to trick Lana into believing she was in love with you." This is Clark's accusation to Lex while he is under the influence of silver K in "Splinter." He fears that Lana will betray him, just as Lex has--though her betrayal would be the double betrayal of consorting with Clark's enemy. And this does seem to be coming true: every episode since Splinter has moved a step closer to Lexana. I suspect that what Splinter is predicting is that Clark is never going to be able to accept this relationship as real, and that this will somehow lead to full-out war between Lex and Clark. ("I don't want to hurt you, Clark." "But I want to hurt you.")
"If I'd have killed Lana...." (Clark in "Splinter") Clark does, as it turns out, kill Lana in "Reckoning"--or at least, he contributes to her death. (Interesting that in Splinter he *also* almost kills his dad, and attacks Lex, saying that he wants to hurt him. ) Splinter predicts that he cannot live without Lana--you'd never forgive yourself, Professor Fine tells him. And in fact, the decision he makes in "Reckoning" does show he can't bear to be the one responsible for her death. Does this mean he'll never forgive himself for his contribution to Jonathan's death?
"Those Kents, they pack quite a punch." (Lionel Luthor, "Splinter") Here he's talking to Lex, whom Clark has bruised pretty badly; but this statement also foreshadows Jonathan's death. It would be interesting to trace the significance of all the punches this season. Clark punching Lex in "Mortal" signalled the start of open hostilities between them. Everyone was rightly critical of him immediately after that episode for continuing to punch Lex when he was down. This is not the action of a hero, but it is definitely the instinctive response of a Kent (at least a Kent male raised by Jonathan!). Will Clark ever learn that his father died striking his enemy in anger? I think he *must* learn that, sometime in the future, because I think it will be one of the things preventing him from striking a similar future blow at Lex, which would not destroy him physically, but would do so morally.
Actually, I wonder if Clark would have been capable of saving Lionel's life in "Vengeance" had he known the truth about Jonathan's death. Will he ever find out? Will he be tempted not to save him in the future, especially once Lionel starts his seduction of Martha in earnest?
Predicting the future?
"Lana Lang will never love you, son." This is from the end of "Splinter," in the scene with Lionel and Lex. Is this foreshadowing? Or maybe just a warning from Lionel, as part of the deep game he's playing this season?
latxcvi has been talking about the slow progression of Lexana this season, how they are actually taking time to build an organic relationship between them, and I think that's true, as I have sketched out, a little, above. I agree that Lexana is only going to work for the viewers to the extent that there is mutual desire between them, so I really *hope* that this is just Lionel's usual mindfuck, and *not* foreshadowing.
no subject
Even though AlMiles & Co. aren't always the best at making good/hitting the pay-off with foreshadowing, there are certain things where I think you can just *tell* that what's been said/done/revealed is like a gun in a Chekhov play -- if it shows up in the first act, then it's going off before the curtain falls. I absolutely think that the revelation this week that Lex knows about that meeting with Jonathan will come back to bite Lionel (and possibly the remaining Kents) in the ass later on. It seems to me that Lex most likely even has proof of it, either via a recording of the phone call between them or (and this would be even better) surveillance imagery. Because it's something that happened while Lex himself wasn't in complete possession of his faculties, yet Lex knows all about it; this suggests he's watching Lionel's comings and goings like a hawk (and thus turning the tables on his father).
Now. Lex used it to ensure Lionel would back down from the hostile takeover bid, but it's still a pretty big stinkbomb should he decide to set it off before Lionel's had a chance to secure Martha's trust to the point it wouldn't make a difference. Given all the ways Lionel has directly contributed to screwing with Lex's potential for happiness in the past (paying Helen to spy on him, the hostile takeover of the nascent Lex Corp, even seducing Victoria, which contributed to damaging a relationship Lex seemed to at least enjoy, just to name a few examples), I can *absolutely* believe Lex would get off on the poetic justice of doing the same to Lionel. I mean, Lionel's interest in/attention to Martha isn't a new thing, and Lex does, I think, know his father well enough to know that even if Lionel's got some *other* motives for wanting a connection with Martha, there's nevertheless something about Martha qua Martha that's appealing to him. So I can see Lex timing it just so Lionel maybe gets close enough to thinking he's got Martha (and access to Clark), and then sharing the information and effectively destroying the tenuous connection. I certainly know *I* would find that to be really satisfying TV.
I agree that Lexana is only going to work for the viewers to the extent that there is mutual desire between them, so I really *hope* that this is just Lionel's usual mindfuck, and *not* foreshadowing.
I view everything that comes out of Lionel's mouth to Lex as being a mindfuck. Lionel is a classic emotionally/psychologically abusive parent, and others made an excellent case to me at the time of the episode (because that scene irritated me something *fierce* at the time) that this was just another instance of that. Lana was being used as a stand-in; Lionel was essentially telling Lex *no one* would ever love him, because he's apparently inherently unloveable, and that's (a) an awful thing for a parent to say to their child, and (b) absolutely not true, as iconic!Lex *is* well-beloved by the people of Metropolis (it's part of his rivalry with Superman because when Superman showed up, Lex suddenly had to share the status of "Metropolis' Favorite Son").
no subject
That would be really good TV, and I'd *love* to see Lex bring down his father in that way.
Lana was being used as a stand-in; Lionel was essentially telling Lex *no one* would ever love him, because he's apparently inherently unloveable, and that's (a) an awful thing for a parent to say to their child, and (b) absolutely not true, as iconic!Lex *is* well-beloved by the people of Metropolis
I agree that here his dad is actually saying no one will ever love him. I think, though, that in Smallville canon (as opposed to comics canon) that's going to be *true*. I mean, he'll have people who are crazily devoted to him, like Lexfan in "Fanatic" (and Mercy and Hope, if they ever turn up on the show), and he may be *popular* as a politician, but I think part of the SV mythos is that if anyone really ever loved Lex for Lex (as opposed to for his power or money or influence) and *didn't* later abandon him, he wouldn't go completely evil.
This suggests, to me, that even if Lana *does* fall for him, she's going to end up abandoning him at some point (perhaps because he lives up to his promise and never lies to her, and at some point she realizes she can't live with knowing exactly what he's doing).
no subject
I agree that it's part of the SV mythos, but honestly? It's a part of the mythos that's always troubled me, because I think it's really very simplistic. The idea that all any given person ever really needs is to be loved to keep them from doing or being bad is, IMO, a somewhat romanticized idea of the power of love that bears no relationship to the real world/real life. There are lots of people who love and have been loved who *still* end up doing shitty, awful, bad things to their fellow man, because despite loving and being loved, they're still able to choose the morally/ethically expedient way to get what they want/need because it's easier to them than Doing the Right Thing.
I think Lex's story would be even more interesting if, *despite* the fact that he's not only capable of loving others but of being loved by them, he still *chooses* to do ethically/morally dodgy things to achieve his ends (I certainly think it's closer to Lex's story then being an actual *tragedy*, in the dramatic sense of that word, than 'Lex is bad because no one loved him enough/everyone mistreats him'). Setting it up where the idea is essentially "Lex does bad things because no one ever really loved him/everyone who loved him left him" carries with it the implication that Lex isn't really *responsible* in any way for how he turns out because hey, if someone had just loved him enough, he wouldn't feel compelled to do bad things! I think such a set-up skirts too close to letting Lex off the hook for his choices for me to really endorse it. Sadly, though, I'm not the SV PTB.
no subject
No argument here. I think part of the problem is that TPTB just aren't good enough at really complicated storytelling to tell something that complex. I also think that perhaps they decided to stick with this particular motivation for Lex's fall because they thought it would be easier for a lot of the audience to accept, especially given Lex's popularity. (And I'm not sure that your desire to see Lex being responsible for the choices he makes towards his iconic destiny is widely shared in the fandom--given how frequently people still want to blame Clark's secret keeping, or Jonathan's judgmentalism, or Lionel's machinations for every bad decision Lex makes.)
no subject
I wonder if Clark would have been capable of saving Lionel's life in "Vengeance" had he known the truth about Jonathan's death.
Well this was directly addressed when Andrea asked 'what would you do if you were face to face with your father's killer?' and I think we're seeing a Clark who is gradually moving towards being able to hold back despite his anger. As you suggest, it could be that discovering his father's fury contributed to his death plays a part in that. And perhaps the season will end with a non-punch, with Clark confronting Lex but stepping back from the final blow. That would really shape their future relationship and put the punch at the start of the season in context.
The Lexana foreshadowing has been so heavy, I really can't wait for it to go somewhere. I liked your teasing out of how Lana is split between wanting to protect (adult identity) and wanting to be protected (child identity). I think Lex is similarly split. On the one hand, he recognises and acknowledges Lana's desire for full knowledge and truth. We've seen that he believes in this within intimate relationships, at all costs, and so her appeals to him on those grounds strike deep. She's essentially speaking to an earlier (S2-3) Lex (as
Recognising just how dangerous the secrets are has also been a matter of self-discovery. I think when Lex says 'people have killed for a lot less' he's speaking personally. I think he knows *he* would kill for the secrets under certain circumstances (arguably he already has). And not only that, but *Lana* has killed for them and though it's unspoken between them, he is protecting her from becoming a killer again as much as protecting her from killers. The desire for knowledge taints people's morality and one of the things he loves about her is her purity, so I think part of him can't bear to 'soil' her with that secret.
However, what we've seen is that Lana's been successful in tapping into the 'old' Lex of full disclosure. Lex more than anyone takes Lana seriously as an adult and when she calls him on it and says she doesn't want to be protected any more, he believes her and respects her.
I want the Lexana! I want to know where this goes!
I really *hope* that this is just Lionel's usual mindfuck, and *not* foreshadowing.
To make this the most enormous comment ever... I agree with
What it means for future canon is frustratingly simplistic. However I can see (speculation! that thing I'm bad at!) the possibility of them using Lexana to show that Lex comes close to achieving love but this time (in contrast to Helen) he messes it up of his own accord... showing that despite his 'better' self, he's further down the path to evil coldness that he imagines.
no subject
Ah, but I think it's a little different when he's talking to Andrea, because it's not his father, it's her mother--so it's still a little abstract for him. And while he did finally restrain himself from hurting Snake, it was a close thing for a while--and Snake didn't really hurt his mom that badly.
Recognising just how dangerous the secrets are has also been a matter of self-discovery. I think when Lex says 'people have killed for a lot less' he's speaking personally. I think he knows *he* would kill for the secrets under certain circumstances (arguably he already has). And not only that, but *Lana* has killed for them and though it's unspoken between them, he is protecting her from becoming a killer again as much as protecting her from killers. The desire for knowledge taints people's morality and one of the things he loves about her is her purity, so I think part of him can't bear to 'soil' her with that secret.
Do you think Lex thinks Lana is still pure, though? I get that in some ways she represents season 1 Clark to him, but on the other hand, he's the only one who knows she killed Genevieve Teague--and he's protecting her secret about that. I wonder if that's going to come back to haunt her, later?
It's a good point, though, that Lex wants to prevent Lana from needing to kill to protect secrets, since he knows what that does to you. (I'm trying to remember--has Lex killed anyone directly besides Roger Nixon? Because Lana's body count is two, right now, counting that henchman of Edge she killed at the beginning of S3.)
I can see (speculation! that thing I'm bad at!) the possibility of them using Lexana to show that Lex comes close to achieving love but this time (in contrast to Helen) he messes it up of his own accord... showing that despite his 'better' self, he's further down the path to evil coldness that he imagines.
I agree with LaT that they really need to stop simply portraying Lex as the victim of other's choices, so I would like it if that scenario you sketched happened. It would be nicely symmetrical if the thing that drives Lana *away* from Lex was seeing the consequences of Lex *uncovering* some of CLark's secrets (and maybe doing bad things with them), leading Lana to realize that some secrets really *do* need to be kept.
I don't know if they can really have Lex learn Clark's secrets, but I assume that either Dr. Fine or General Zod is going to return by the end of the season, so maybe Lex's investigations will lead him to one of the two and have devastating consequences.
no subject
Sorry! That was me excitedly replying too fast and not explaining myself properly. I meant that for the audience, that question was posed. I think we're meant to reflect on what Clark would do if he knew Lionel had met with Jonathan just before his death. Certainly Clark wouldn't have taken it that way: his obliviousness to Lionel in that scene was one of its most powerful aspects.
Do you think Lex thinks Lana is still pure, though?
Ah
no subject
Do you think Lex thinks Lana is still pure, though?
I don't think I want to leave that at an enigmatic 'Ah' actually. ;) Again, I think this is a case of split feelings. He's not an idiot so no, he doesn't think she's just the fairy princess anymore. I think he is drawn to her darkness, to the fact that she's got secrets too. But I also think that he sees her still hold herself together *as if* none of that had happened, so her surface image of demure good-girl attracts him. In that way, I think his love for her is quite narcissistic, because she holds out the hope of having secrets but being 'good' despite that. They could be like that together. They could understand one another. They could recognise the stains on each other's souls but be loved despite them. If he can love her with those stains, he can love himself (maybe?)... It's hard to express what I mean exactly but I do think that both Lana's goodness/purity and her darkness attract him. The double level is what really gets him...
Direct Lex killings? Hm... Jason? Possibly? We don't know what happened to him exactly. I suspect at the very least that Lex got rid of his body. But that's me in speculation mode again.
It would be nicely symmetrical if the thing that drives Lana *away* from Lex was seeing the consequences of Lex *uncovering* some of CLark's secrets (and maybe doing bad things with them), leading Lana to realize that some secrets really *do* need to be kept.
Yes, I'd like that too and they do symmetry well usually. Also, this would allow Lana to go through the same arc of development/understanding as S2-3 Lex. Which is what they seem to be doing with her. You're right though that I don't think they'll overtly have Lex discover Clark's secrets. Frankly I think Lex pretty much knows them but they're only ever going to hint that he does. So I think any uncovered secrets are more likely to be Zod-related as you suggest.
Oh I want Zod back so bad! If he doesn't come back by the season finale, I'll be pissy.
no subject
I just had to cut and paste that whole thing, because I think it is *brilliant*. In fact, I think *you* should cut and paste it and repost it in your own journal so other people see it, because I've been seeing complaints in a few places (
Direct Lex killings? Hm... Jason? Possibly?
Didn't he get killed when the meteors hit the Kent house? Or was that never actually confirmed?
Oh I want Zod back so bad! If he doesn't come back by the season finale, I'll be pissy.
I'm actually willing to wait for Zod, because I'm more interested in the Lionel arc (unless the Lionel arc actually gets tied together with the Zod arc). I'm a little worried about what they're going to do next season, already--this season has been so spectacular that I'm afraid next season is going to inevitably be a letdown, unless they keep something good up their sleeve (like Zod). Of course, they could make Zod an ongoing villain into next season, I guess. I assume Lex will start assuming his father's mantle next season, but they can't progress *too* fast with that if they're operating under the assumption now that the show will run for seven seasons.
no subject
I'm pretty sure there's been no definitive answer on Jason. Certainly no body found, which seems really supicious. We *presume* he was killed by meteors but isn't that a bit weird if the Kents escaped? I'm actually sure it's just a daft script loose end (like Lex's blood transfusions at the start of Season 4--I never got over them dropping that!) but still, it makes for interesting speculation.
Oh it's hard to say with the whole Zod and/or Lionel thing. I get vertigo-like feelings when I think about two more seasons! But I want Zod back at some stage. That's my request to TPTB. Zod and lots more Lois action please! ;) And some seriously angsty Lexana and seriously evil Lionel would also be fine. And a really brilliant Lex/Lionel showdown please. *starts a list*
just popping in ...
Direct Lex killings? Hm... Jason? Possibly? We don't know what happened to him exactly. I suspect at the very least that Lex got rid of his body. But that's me in speculation mode again.
The only person Lex qua Lex is responsible for killing directly is Roger Nixon (and while that could be construed as Lex killing for the sake of *keeping* secrets -- in this case, his investigation of Clark -- Roger's death was neverthless justifiable, because he was about to kill Jonathan when Lex shot him) .
Jason was killed in the meteor shower that destroyed the Kents' house (the implication is that Lex used the meteor shower as the means of covering up Genevieve's death when he orchestrated the Ledgerprinting a story that *both* Jason and Genevieve died in the meteor strike).
Alexander (also known as Bad!Lex in Onyx) killed Dr. Sinclair, but it's strongly arguable that Lex himself isn't morally responsible for that because, well, he quite literally wasn't himself when it happened. *g*
Re: just popping in ...
Alexander (also known as Bad!Lex in Onyx) killed Dr. Sinclair, but it's strongly arguable that Lex himself isn't morally responsible for that because, well, he quite literally wasn't himself when it happened. *g*
Thanks! I had a feeling I was forgetting someone in Lex's bodycount. And you're right, it doesn't *really* count, but I was comparing his bodycount to Lana's, and Lana killing Genevieve Teague doesn't *really* count either since she was possessed by Isabel at the time.
And thanks for clarifying how Jason died. You really have an encyclopedic knowledge of Smallville canon!
Re: just popping in ...
I would come down on the side of Lex not being responsbile for Alexander killing Dr Sinclair, but it's still interesting to note.
I find the whole Jason death thing mysteriously incomplete. How do we know he died? Is he still buried under the Kent farm?! That thread was not very neatly explained (perhaps a scene was deleted?). I guess it just bugs me because it was so damn convenient that Jason was killed by the meteors and not by some other means, and I had a soft spot for him, so I didn't like him being so easily disposed of! (Goodness! Is this me speaking? I'm usually the non-complainer about loose threads on this program!)
no subject
Or, alternatively, for Lex to keep his promise of honesty to Lana and have her driven away because she finds that she actually can't abide some of the choices he makes/things he does. I think that would also be an interesting way to go because it would leave *Lana* alone because of something she always insisted relationships needed -- full and total disclosure. That would actually be another way for her to learn that sometimes, the things people keep from you, they're keeping for reasons of allowing a relationship to *survive*. It would also tie in nicely to something Lex said to her in Recruit, which is this idea that sometimes, people claim all they want is the truth, and then when they get it, they wish they'd never learned it.
no subject
*Nodding in agreement* I'd be happy to see either scenario, really.
no subject
Oh yes, that would fit as well. I like the idea of Lana learning that. Either way, I'm looking forward to the arc's completion.
buckeye mega millions numbers
(Anonymous) 2012-04-24 08:22 am (UTC)(link)The event [url=http://www.outlethervelegerdressessale.com/]Herve Leger Sale[/url] not just obtained our trust to go after a lengthy lack
one's heart [url=http://www.salechristianlouboutinoutletonline.com/]Christian Louboutin Outlet[/url] gets to be more potent, more to the point, our boy i, understand as well as [url=http://www.burberryonlinehandbagsoutlet2012.com/]Burberry Handbags[/url] believe in one another much more. Xuan Zang mitzvah routines alteration by appliance Kate Moss possess took part in a period of period, nevertheless 38-year-old private business masters are still absorbed inside the ft . Gobi Jian memories.