Limyaael

Previous Entry Add to Memories Tell a Friend Next Entry
04:30 pm: How to let your protagonist make mistakes
The title should be descriptive enough in and of itself, but just in case: I’ve said an awful lot about how authors should allow their protagonists to make mistakes more often and not simply know “intuitively” or “somehow” what the right thing to do is. But I appreciate that a protagonist who does so can look awfully stupid.



1) Give the protagonist limited access to information, for a good reason. I’m currently reading Judith Berman’s Bear Daughter; the main character is Cloud, who was born a bear, but abruptly becomes a girl one day. She continually tries to learn more information about her bear father and exactly what happened when he kidnapped Thrush, her human mother. Since no one knows why she became human and her relatives are still in mourning for the men who died trying to rescue Thrush, they’re reluctant to tell her what she wants to know. Thus Cloud makes mistakes when she gets tossed into the wider world. A very large chunk of knowledge about her own past that most human children in her culture get the chance to absorb simply isn’t there.

This is the kind of plot that can actually work well with a child or a teenage protagonist, but also with adults. Someone who’s been in exile, is low in status but suddenly achieves social mobility, or could present danger to others with a little knowledge might also be cut out of the loop believably. And, of course, they’re going to stumble headlong when they come up on one of the unanticipated gaps in their conception of the world.

How do you differentiate good reasons to hide knowledge from bad ones? First of all, the time reason (“We don’t have time to tell you what you want to know right now”) is generally crap, because most of the time the author doesn’t actually engage the characters in constant high-speed running from the enemy. Second, the knowledge has to be actively painful or dangerous or sensitive; why should anyone care if the protagonist knows her grandmother had blue eyes or not, unless that is somehow significant? Third, it’s better when the protagonist has no means to force someone else to answer her questions, as a child or servant wouldn’t have. Just getting dragged along in sullen silence and not asking questions at all is dumb, and worse, passive.

2) Create a situation where anyone would be out of their depth. That’s the situation of Lilith Iyapo in Octavia Butler’s Dawn. She’s informed that the Oankali, aliens who have preserved the remnants of humanity in suspension after a devastating world war, are going to breed with humans, no ifs, ands, or buts. She’s assigned to awaken other humans and introduce them to their new overlords. She makes mistakes about who the best people to wake up are, even with access to their life histories, because this is a completely new situation for everyone.

This is, I think, probably the best way to show your protagonist being mistaken, for all sorts of reasons:

-it involves thinking about the plot as well as the character
-it allows other people to make mistakes as well
-it allows your protagonist to make some right guesses, if only because of chance (Lilith, for instance, manages to correctly predict a few people’s reactions)
-it shows how admirable character traits might develop as the protagonist struggles to deal with the situation

I think this one isn’t used more often simply because of the very strong bias to have the protagonist triumph completely no matter what. Prolonged struggles and compromised victories are often not on the agenda. Well, they should be; they’re more interesting stories and less likely to be wish-fulfillment than the story where the protagonist goes forth against “impossible odds” but does everything right from the beginning.

3) Build a tendency to a certain sort of mistake into your protagonist’s personality. Another book I recently finished reading is Tanith Lee’s White as Snow, a retelling of “Snow White.” Arpazia, the evil queen figure, is both ignorant because of her sheltered upbringing and so self-absorbed that no one else is really real to her. Thus she continually alienates other people. Her daughter, Coira, has some of the same problems, but overcomes them because she can more easily open her self to others and accept that she’s not the most important thing in the world.

If your protagonist is proud of her intelligence, she may very well propose a clever solution to a problem, and then be astonished when she tries to apply that solution and it doesn’t work because of other forces she figured to take into account. (This is a sort of mistake that I’m very familiar with from my time in academia). If she’s obsessed with going on a quest to find her kidnapped friend, she could ignore short-term “distractions” that might actually advance her goal in the long term. If she has to work with someone she finds distasteful, she might set out to prove that person a fraud in hopes of getting them dismissed, only to find out that her colleague is actually a good person but has been disgusted by her automatic distrust. (This is the sort of mistake where the protagonist is equalizing “I don’t like her” to “She’s evil.”)

This strategy might be easier for many writers, as they do generally agree that their protagonists have to have flaws. Now what needs to happen is the consistent treatment of flaws as flaws, rather than just opportunities to make other people laugh indulgently.

4) Set up several conflicting attitudes towards and explanations of the protagonist’s actions. The most powerful of these in Mary Doria Russell’s The Sparrow are, respectively, the notion that everything in the story is ordained by God, and the notion that the failures—the collapse of a Jesuit mission to a planet named Rakhat that’s found to be inhabited and the deaths of seven of the eight people involved in the mission—are simply the result of blind caprice and chance. The main character, Emilio Sandoz, believes in God’s will for most of the book, but his faith is challenged and challenged and challenged again until it shatters. Yet other characters remain convinced that he’s a martyr or a saint. That these same characters often die randomly and horribly adds more weight to the other side. The reader is left with differing rationales according to which Sandoz can either be blamed or exculpated from blame.

This is probably the most delicate way of creating mistakes for your protagonist to make. For one thing, there has to be actual evidence in the book that things can be interpreted more than one way. If everything is clearly the result of Destiny in this world and only an idiot would believe in free will or that the prophecy would not be fulfilled, why should the reader? (And thus we arrive at the core of my problem with every story that uses Destiny but tries to show the hero as making important choices). For another, you have to go for important mistakes. If two characters argue about their opposing principles and inflict psychic damage on each other as their relationship collapses because neither will compromise, the author has to show that those principles are vital to the characters involved. A simple healing kiss or surrender of principles by one of the characters later, or—my least favorite—a loophole according to which they’re “both” right, simply implies that the mistake wasn’t really a mistake and all the angst about it wasn’t justified.

Russell chooses several important issues for her protagonist as the core of her story: the problem of faith, the death of everyone else on the mission, the apparent betrayal by Sandoz of his vow of celibacy, and the murder of a child at Sandoz’s hands. Without these, and seeing how they came to happen, The Sparrow would be much less powerful.



Comments

From:[info]poirotskull
Date:January 14th, 2008 10:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
On point one, it's surprising that while many fantasy authors set their stories in what is supposedly Medieval Western Europe, the characters have the kind of knowledge that only people with access to 21st Century media would have. Like, they'll have heard about how King Whoopidoop fell off his horse in the Kingdom of Moobo, despite that being on the other side of the Gloonk Sea.
[User Picture]
From:[info]limyaael
Date:January 15th, 2008 09:37 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I don't mind this kind of thing if the stories are old- proverbs or fables or myths- or old news, so that the whole country's laughing about how King Whoopidoop fell off his horse five years ago. But yeah, otherwise it's very hard to explain how a traveler who took three months to reach the sheltered village where the protagonist lives knows about developments that took place after he left. At least a line about carrier pigeons or something would explain things.
From:[info]kizmet_42
Date:January 15th, 2008 12:53 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'm very sure you're standing right behind me, a little to the left, reading my novel over my shoulder, aren't you?

How else do you always seem to know exactly what I need to hear?
[User Picture]
From:[info]limyaael
Date:January 15th, 2008 09:37 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It seems to be a talent. :)
From:[info]kellicat
Date:January 15th, 2008 03:35 am (UTC)
(Link)
I really like this rant. It's a fine balance between having a protagonist make too few mistakes or too many mistakes if you want your protagonist to stay alive. Too few makes them into a Mary Sue and too many can doom the protagonist to a nasty death. If protagonists are supposed to die for their stupidity, that's one thing, but an ending where the protagonist survives requires them to do something right.

All of the suggestions above are good and I think that combining them would be even more interesting. For example, Seranne witholds a piece of important information from Taria because Taria's a notorious gossip and Seranne doesn't want that piece of information spread aroundthe marketplace. Then Taria makes a huge mistake that endangers them both because Seranne didn't tell her what she needed to know. That could be a combination of #1 and #3, epsecially if Taria's tendency to gossip too much and Seranne's reticence had been established earlier in the narrative.

2 and 4 could also make an explosive combination since different people will different views on what to do in a completely new situation. I'm definitely planning to use them both in the novel I'm working on right now. The result should be interesting.
[User Picture]
From:[info]limyaael
Date:January 15th, 2008 09:38 pm (UTC)
(Link)
There's also a third kind of dumb mistake: when the protagonist is convinced they've done something wrong and then the author intervenes to show that no, they were actually right! My least favorite example is the protagonist committing a crime and then the author saying there was a law passed a few days before it happened that made this activity not a crime. I really hate that kind of blatant plot manipulation.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:January 15th, 2008 09:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
My least favorite example is the protagonist committing a crime and then the author saying there was a law passed a few days before it happened that made this activity not a crime.

?

Does that actually happen? That's too absurd for words.

-- Dan Hemmens
[User Picture]
From:[info]limyaael
Date:January 16th, 2008 12:17 am (UTC)
(Link)
Yes. In David Feintuch's Prisoner's Hope. The protagonist sets off a nuclear weapon to save a planet, which is treason in his future society that hates all things nuclear, and goes home to await trial- only to receive word on the way that the Earth government has just passed a law saying that if a nuclear weapon is set off to save a planet, then it's not treason. Do not ask me why I read these books.
From:[info]maslennikov
Date:January 16th, 2008 01:47 am (UTC)
(Link)
Damn. How did that even work? Wouldn't the protagonist getting away consequence-free suck a good deal of the sacrifice/nobility out of his choice? Why do writers do that to their stories?
From:[info]luke_jaywalker
Date:April 21st, 2009 11:07 am (UTC)
(Link)
I saw that less as a moral vindication than as a cheap deus ex machina.

Protagonist *did* think he was committing treason and sentencing himself to death in order to accomplish his goal, *did* at the time have every reason to believe that he was making a sacrifice... but Feintuch wanted to keep him alive for the next book.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:January 16th, 2008 10:32 am (UTC)
(Link)
That's utterly ludicrous. It's made even more ludicrous by being completely unnecessary. Any halfway-decent lawyer could make the argument that saving a planet wasn't treason, any halfway sympathetic jury could at least plausibly buy it.

The whole *concept* of precedent law is based on the idea that a court is there not only to try the facts of the case, but also to make a call on how and where the law should be applied.

-- Dan Hemmens
[User Picture]
From:[info]beccastareyes
Date:January 16th, 2008 06:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Plus, it seems like that would be a lot more interesting. I mean, dealing with the sway of public opinion and the legal battle and if the protagonists has any enemies, are they going to try to affect the trial. And was it really justified -- could there have been another way?

You could tell a whole part of the story about the consequences of the protagonist's actions, and how he deals with them. Sweeping it under the rug is boring.
From:[info]kellicat
Date:January 16th, 2008 02:18 am (UTC)
(Link)
That drives me nuts! That kind of dumb mistake has no place outside of farce and most authors who make that kind of mistake aren't trying to write farce. They just can't bear to see their special widdle protagonists get punished at the end.
From:[info]swiftgold.livejournal.com
Date:February 8th, 2008 07:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I've read instances (thankfully only in fanfic) where one character neglects to mention something important to the "team", apparently to be mysterious and all-knowing, I guess, and then when something goes bad because of the lack of information, they punish the "team" for not knowing it. If that was meant to be part of the characterization it would be one thing, buuut...
From:(Anonymous)
Date:March 10th, 2010 12:08 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The entirety of Belgariad jumps to mind... Though Polgara didn't usually punish the whole team, only Garion. It really made me hate her character when she never told him anything and then got angry at him for doing something stupid. And even though she seemed to honestly believe that keeping him stupid and ignorant was the way to go, I got the vibe that she also totally enjoyed her mysteriousness. It became even more apparent in her own book, Polgara The Sorceress.

-Sunatic
From:[info]kellicat
Date:January 15th, 2008 03:37 am (UTC)
(Link)
By the way, may I friend you?
[User Picture]
From:[info]limyaael
Date:January 15th, 2008 09:38 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Sure! *friends back*
From:(Anonymous)
Date:January 15th, 2008 09:18 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It strikes me, here in my little corner of the internet, that the "too many mistakes" problem and the "not enough mistakes" problem could be seen as manifestations of exactly the same problem: suborning character integrity to plot interests.

Most of the really infuriating character mistakes I can think of off the top of my head come down to Plot Necessitated Stupidity: characters only make a mistake when the plot requires that they - say - decide to implicitly trust a complete stranger who talks like Dr Evil.

Similarly most infuriating not-mistakes come from either characters suddenly "knowing" what the right course of action is or - worse - characters doing something irredeemably stupid and having it miraculously turn out to be the right idea all along.

-- Dan Hemmens

(Posted as Morcar on Fictionpress coupla years back, just caught up with your Fantasy Rants after a long absence)
[User Picture]
From:[info]limyaael
Date:January 15th, 2008 09:40 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'd agree that in many cases, the author has too much of an eye on the plot. With absolutely perfect characters, though, or characters that are mouthpieces for the author's POV, the slavish love of the character involved makes them dash to the rescue.

(And hello. I think I remember you!)
From:(Anonymous)
Date:January 15th, 2008 10:13 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm currently reading Holy Smokes right now, and am getting SO annoyed at how the heroine manages to remain ignorant and bumbling into book 4. Sure, she's got plenty of "tendency towards certain mistake" going on, but in all the books, there's generally no good reason why certain people won't tell her anything, and it's downright ridiculous how she cannot, for the life of her, get more than the occasional tidbit of information out of anyone. Especially when the guild she "supposedly" belongs to does whatever they can to make sure she doesn't get training. You'd think at some point someone would think, "Gee, let this girl run around with no training and she somehow keeps summoning demons and crap by mistake. MAYBE IT'D BE A GOOD IDEA TO TELL HER HOW NOT TO DO THAT."

Ugh, idiot plots. I don't know why I am reading this series. Not sure I'll continue with it either.
[User Picture]
From:[info]kdorian
Date:January 16th, 2008 04:39 am (UTC)
(Link)
You'd think at some point someone would think, "Gee, let this girl run around with no training and she somehow keeps summoning demons and crap by mistake. MAYBE IT'D BE A GOOD IDEA TO TELL HER HOW NOT TO DO THAT."

*LMAO* Ya THINK?
From:[info]l-clausewitz.livejournal.com
Date:January 16th, 2008 06:18 pm (UTC)
(Link)
If your protagonist is proud of her intelligence, she may very well propose a clever solution to a problem, and then be astonished when she tries to apply that solution and it doesn’t work because of other forces she figured to take into account.

Because of other forces she forgot to take into account, maybe? I guess I'm particularly sensitive to this since it's my favorie kind of mistake and the one I most frequently inflict on my protagonists just for the sheer fun of it (and because it's the one I can identify with most easily). On the other hand....

But I appreciate that a protagonist who does so can look awfully stupid.

Sometimes stupid protagonists can be fun to read and write about, especially if the stupidity is intentional. The first chapter of The Three Musketeers wouldn't have been so funny if it wasn't for D'Artagnan's stupidity. Guybrush Threeplock (?) in the Monkey Island games is so adorable because he's a little stupid. And I suspect Naruto is so popular among the fans of Japanese comics and animation because it breaks the recent trend for dark, brooding protagonists by returning to the older theme of a brave, talented, loyal, and dedicated but rather stupid hero (the eponymous Naruto).

Maybe you could write a rant on stupid characters? Or on making an important character's stupidity look intentional rather than being an udnesirable side efect of an Idiot Plot (TM)?

Oh, BTW, maybe you'd be interested to write a polemic I wrote some time ago on the inventiveness of brilliant generals (http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/312198.html)--just for fun if nothing else.
From:[info]katla
Date:January 17th, 2008 04:25 am (UTC)
(Link)
Guybrush Threeplock (?)

Threepwood. :)
From:(Anonymous)
Date:February 4th, 2008 04:43 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The correction is greatly appreciated.
From:[info]reiknight
Date:January 20th, 2008 12:01 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Hello limyaael, long time, no see. I decided to make an IJ when Six Apart sold LJ to the russian company SUP. Am waiting to see if and how they either improve/wreck things more, but just in case... I'm visiting here as well. Have missed seeing your posts on my f-list, so I friended you here. Ah, I've changed my username too (I was jihira_raitoken)
I'm pleased to see this rant up, it's one I've been waiting for for some time. I'm all for character/plot/world realism even more than before and have finally reached the stage where certain books and authors are avoided with something that borders on paranoia now - and I try not to make huge mistakes.
How far does a character have to go making mistakes before it's obvious he is being manipulated by the author? I'm curious about where to draw that line, since one of my characters falls very strongly within 1 and 3, being very ignorant of the world he is suddenly thrown into, even with an accelerated few years of "learning" implanted in his head, he is still majorly ignorant of the world and the attitudes of the people there and he thinks he's smart (and yes, on Earth he is) but he's reacting to a different world with his Earth experiences and really screwing up all the time. The two cultures are different enough that it's impossible for him to use one lot of knowledge to react appropriately to another. He comes from 20th century Australia and is thrown into a somewhat medieval society with a few twists. But he really, really stuffs up which results in his grandfather (his guardian) being abducted, and is arrogant and resistant to change... (yes he is a teenage protagonist) I'm trying to make him realistic as a person, without too much authorial manipulation, but in each of the conflicts he's tossed into, he fails and fails again. And keeps on failing, and still he doesn't learn. I don't know - maybe I'm throwing him into too much too quickly. Back to the topic - how far can that mistake making be dragged out before it's a bore and obvious that the author wants him to keep on failing? He *should* learn to adapt or realise that he needs help, but... where?

Good rant, as usual, it gives me much to think about and once more sparks off little ideas in my head that continue to make my everlasting annoyance series keep on going.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:February 14th, 2008 10:49 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I am also writing a story with the character making #1 errors a lot. She is asked to assist with a magic spell in the first chapter. She is then left to deal with the ramifications of this alone since the person who requested the help left and she doesn't trust other people with magic. She has to answer a lot of questions herself and gets the answers wrong much of the time.

From:[info]ex_fumbles873
Date:January 24th, 2008 08:53 am (UTC)
(Link)
Hi, very good rant as usual (been lurking around for a while now and read them all). I have particular problems with this one, especially with #2, so this rant came just in time to get me some good ideas on how to get my characters into trouble.

And I read theSparrow, too, some time ago, but I have to admit it completely freaked me out back then.

BTW, I friended you.
From:[info]half_pace
Date:February 15th, 2008 05:52 pm (UTC)

Rant

(Link)
Hi, excellent rant as per usual. Friend me?

Couple of ideas for next rant(s):

Sticking to inheritance patterns for traits. All too often, I've seen Suethors decide that a trait is dominant and then have the hero(ine) show this trait, even though her parents both have the recessive trait, without an explanation. i.e. Mary-Sue has brown eyes, despite both parents having blue eyes.

Pointless Japan-phile-ness. Seriously, what's with the Suethors' obsessions with Japan, and done grossly wrong too?

[User Picture]
From:[info]khajidu
Date:February 15th, 2008 10:03 pm (UTC)

Re: Rant

(Link)
Actually, parents with blue eyes can have children with brown eyes... but it's very rare.
From:[info]half_pace
Date:February 16th, 2008 01:03 pm (UTC)

Re: Rant

(Link)
Yeh, I know. But would you agree that it's rare enough that an explanation is needed?
From:(Anonymous)
Date:February 16th, 2008 11:12 pm (UTC)

Re: Rant

(Link)
I wouldn't, personally, because I don't think Mendelean genetics should apply to fantasy worlds.

Start thinking like that, and you wind up with the idea that cross breeding two Half-Elves should result in one Human, one Elf and two Half-Elves because of the punnit square.

- Dan Hemmens
From:[info]ex_fumbles873
Date:February 19th, 2008 09:07 am (UTC)

Re: Rant

(Link)
Start thinking like that, and you wind up with the idea that cross breeding two Half-Elves should result in one Human, one Elf and two Half-Elves because of the punnit square.

That would work only if only a single characteristic was involved and none of the alleles were dominant... Which most probably isn't the case, although most authors handle it as if it were, or so it seems with all those half-elves out there that are carbon-copies of each other. (On the other hand, in these stories not only the half-elves are clones...)/mini-rant

Anyway, I think you're right. Apart from the fact that it's damn hard to make fantasy races work genetically according to Mendel's laws, it's much more fun to devise completely new genetics for them. And who said they have to behave genetically like us?
From:[info]abnormaldiversity.blogspot.com
Date:March 3rd, 2011 03:43 pm (UTC)

Re: Rant

(Link)
In one of my stories, I actually worked out a set of fifteen or so genes, each with two or three separate allelles, that caused the mix of magic talents in my story. I've lost the info on the specific genes, but I do recall that it was possible for a child with a strong talent in this one plot-important 'forgotten magic' to pop up without any relatives having that particular talent. I was planning to have a generations-long conspiracy in place based on the faint hope of finding the hypothesized decendant of this one person, only to discover that someone who is most definitely *not* descended from them shows the qualifications they need.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:August 15th, 2008 11:31 am (UTC)

Re: Rant

(Link)
I, a lover of fantasy and biochemistry, would like to point out that Mendelian genetics can work perfectly well in fantasy worlds. You just have to put a little thought into it. In fact, thinking about things like magic in terms of evolutionary biology and genetics can provide some really interesting ideas, especially about drawbacks- Why, exactly, is the trait for mad majickal skillz not found throughout the population? (This is one of the very, very few things I thought Robert Jordan did right- since the girls were being recruited to a celibate group and the guys were getting killed, the numbers dropped)
--
~Shadow Phoenix~
From:[info]seawolf10.livejournal.com
Date:February 23rd, 2008 02:26 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'd like your constructive criticism on something I'm doing related to #1, please.

I'm working on a short story, and I'm trying to figure out if a series of mistaken assumptions the protagonists make is believable.

The protagonists (two brothers, royal brats way down on the metaphorical totem pole -- 5th and 7th, so no hope in hell of the succession) are stuck with the job of trying to figure out just what exactly is killing the serfs in one particular village. (Bodies turn up missing their heads and mostly devoured.)

The villagers' theory (the surviving ones, anyway) is that it's a werewolf, because the deaths didn't start until after they caught an old man who'd been rustling livestock. They impaled him for it on the night of a full moon, and his body disappeared from the stake during the night. Which is why the brothers are handling this in the first place, because they've killed werewolves in the past.

So they go with that theory until they find the old man's skeleton laid out in a cave, surrounded by the severed heads of the villagers. At which point their assumption shifts to "the thing killing people is an evil spirit trying to resurrect its dead master somehow." Still mistaken, but slightly closer to the truth.

Said truth is that the old man's psyche/spirit jumped ship and is currently controlling a pet of his, which is extremely large and carnivorous. (I rather like a minor sub-idea of this: that residing in the mind of a huge predator alters his perspective on eating people without him even noticing.)

Are their mistakes reasonably believable? Is the progression from mistakes to discovering the truth too fast or too slow? Any thoughts?
From:(Anonymous)
Date:May 20th, 2009 04:56 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Just from the summary, I'd say it sounds believable, but I'd have to see it written out to know for sure - it would certainly be possible with that plot to either beat the characters over the head with ignored hints, or have them suddenly realize something with no apparent lead-up. Especially since you haven't said yet how they'll go from 'spirit trying to ressurect master' to what it actually is.
Ettina
From:(Anonymous)
Date:November 27th, 2009 04:06 pm (UTC)

Plot vs. Character Dilemma

(Link)
So, I read your article. And it brings to mind something I need help with. I read books all the time where the protagonist makes so really obvious mistake, and even though its plausible, it infuriates me that they do it. So when I right, I try to make everything turn out like its "supposed to," to spare readers those Head-against-the-wall moments. The problem is that this also makes the plot rather linear and over-simple. Well, not the plot really, more like the path the character takes to get to the end of the plot is too simple. But how can I avert that without these annoying "why did you do that?" prolonged struggles? (Also, I'd rather not have certain of my characters die.)
From:[info]johnbradley
Date:November 24th, 2011 09:15 pm (UTC)
(Link)
carpet cleaning Begin with some vacuum cleaning. This is the first procedure from the carpet cleaning action. It will need some time to be performed well but be sure that it is worthy.

Remove stains, this is what you have to do next. The spots are very unpleasant and may make you nervous. carpet cleaning London
From:[info]barbaragreen90
Date:April 10th, 2012 11:24 am (UTC)
(Link)
This article is very informative and it gives you some useful information.
Every time I need a house cleaner, I book my domestic cleaning West Hampstead company to give me some help.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:June 6th, 2016 05:30 pm (UTC)

Great blog.

(Link)
There are many advantages by visiting http://www.galaxyessay.com/assignment-help/ this site, the increased knowledge of the existence of a set of news up to date, can add connections with other visitors and can introduce stalls each to every visitor.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:June 6th, 2016 05:31 pm (UTC)

Great blog.

(Link)
[url=http://www.galaxyessay.com/]galaxyessay.com[/url] Very efficiently written information. It will be valuable to everyone who uses it, including myself. Thanks a lot!!
Powered by InsaneJournal