Jump to content

Menu

Am I the only female who has a problem with Outlander??


Moxie
 Share

Recommended Posts

There will be spoilers in my post.

 

 

 

So many women just SWOON over Jamie and I like romance novels so I read the book to see what all the fuss was about.

 

I am no prude.  I have NO ISSUE with BDSM in literature or real life between consenting adults.  I assumed most women felt the same way--consent is important!!

 

I was really shocked at the spanking scene.  Not at the spanking but that so many women just go on and on about how wonderful Jamie is even after they read that scene??

 

Why does Jamie get a pass??  Because he is hunky and apologetic??  Do most women secretly want to be with a brute??

 

I don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the scene you are talking about. It is after the wedding. If you'll recall it was a kind of "private/public" punishment, the others were outside listening. If he didn't do it, someone else would have done something and it might have been worse. It is a book, not real, not by a long shot. And it is based on some historically accurate info (not all of it accurate, it does take some license). Jamie is not real, hence he can not get a "pass". He is a fictional character in a historical setting where this type of scenario might have been realistic. Treatment of women and the expectations of the times would probably make that scene even "too nice" (I mean in reality it might have been worse). I mean there is a lot in these books that if you are sensitive to you might want to skip the books (rape, beatings, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I read that in book 1 Outlander - and her meekly admitting he was right to do it. He knew best. I finished the book and had no interest in reading any more, and that scene was a big part of why. Not his behavior so much as her response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, you're not alone.  I found the whole book just sorta blah. 

 

After hearing the hype about it from friends and relatives, I was expecting a very well-written book.  It's ok, but not outstanding.   I have no desire to read any of the rest of the series. 

 

I think that Outlander is mainstream enough to attract readers who typically avoid SF and Fantasy genres, and they don't know that better stuff is out there. I was very disappointed - it reminded me more of an extended Harlequin Romance than anything else.

 

I like sex driven by plot, not plot driven by sex.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you're not the only one.  I didn't like Outlander and don't see the appeal.  I mean, I don't particularly like romance novels and I'll admit, I am a prude - so this plays in it as well for me.  It's one thing to have a sex scene here or there--but my word! It's almost every-other-page and it goes on and on for pages!  Seriously?  What about plot.  I've been told that the other books it isn't quite so much, but I don't really feel like finding out...I was so put off by the first book. And, like I said, I don't really like romance--- I really wanted to like this one because its about time-travel and Scotland...

 

And yeah, I am surprised at how many women give that spanking scene a pass...but then again. I don't get why women loved "50 Shades of Gray" either.  From what I've heard about that book, it seems pretty demeaning to women.

 

I wish I could find it but many years ago there was a meme about the movie Titanic (and maybe others too) about the doubled standard....(ie. mean guys can't cheat on their girls, but pretty sweet girls can)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was briefly considering reading those books and then I heard about that. I decided to give them a big pass.

 

Consent is everything to me. Unless it is a story that obviously deals with that lack of consent as being the problem. But this didn't and I personally don't want to have that in my life.

 

I don't have any issue with sex or whatever in literature. Heck, I read fanfiction, lol. But I don't chose to read about non-consensual sex or violence when it is portrayed as positive or 'sexy' thing. It makes my skin crawl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, you're not alone.  I found the whole book just sorta blah. 

 

After hearing the hype about it from friends and relatives, I was expecting a very well-written book.  It's ok, but not outstanding.   I have no desire to read any of the rest of the series. 

 

I think that Outlander is mainstream enough to attract readers who typically avoid SF and Fantasy genres, and they don't know that better stuff is out there. I was very disappointed - it reminded me more of an extended Harlequin Romance than anything else.

 

I like sex driven by plot, not plot driven by sex.

 

exactly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the scene you are talking about. It is after the wedding. If you'll recall it was a kind of "private/public" punishment, the others were outside listening. If he didn't do it, someone else would have done something and it might have been worse. It is a book, not real, not by a long shot. And it is based on some historically accurate info (not all of it accurate, it does take some license). Jamie is not real, hence he can not get a "pass". He is a fictional character in a historical setting where this type of scenario might have been realistic. Treatment of women and the expectations of the times would probably make that scene even "too nice" (I mean in reality it might have been worse). I mean there is a lot in these books that if you are sensitive to you might want to skip the books (rape, beatings, etc).

So, why do women get all up in arms about Edward Cullen's controlling behavior?? He's a vampire, maybe controlling is normal for him??

 

I'm not sensitive. I'm a bit appalled that women still like Jamie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, you're not alone. I found the whole book just sorta blah.

 

I like sex driven by plot, not plot driven by sex.

I kept wondering when something interesting would happen, plot-wise. I read the first half, skipped ahead and read the last 4 chapters, and that was it for me. I just couldn't get interested in the characters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, why do women get all up in arms about Edward Cullen's controlling behavior?? He's a vampire, maybe controlling is normal for him??

 

I'm not sensitive. I'm a bit appalled that women still like Jamie.

 

Well, I don't get up in arms about him, but I have no idea who he is, lol. That might have something to do with it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just reading for the modern nurse/doctor trying to practice medicine in the 1700's scenes.  Those are the best. ;)  (No, really, those are the best parts of the books.)

 

I was bothered by that as well.  And even more so by the scene that follows where he presses her for s*x and won't stop when she says to stop.  And, even more than that, the insane scene at the end where she r*pes him to try to keep him from dying (if anyone who hasn't read these books reads that sentence, I swear, that's really what happens).  On the one hand, I think DG has written him realistically in that sense.  I mean, if he hadn't beat her, he wouldn't have been a product of his times.  I don't know...  the later books are better in this regard in many ways but I feel like it's because DG never dares confront the issue quite so directly again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt the same way about Outlander as I did about the Twilight series. There was something about the stories that sucked me in at first, but after a while I stopped reading.

 

Actually, now that I think of it, I felt the same way about both series as I felt the other day when I ate an entire giant piece of pie. It was kind of good though awfully sweet while I was eating it, but by the end it didn't taste so great any more. Afterward, I felt like I'd overindulged and had no interest in eating any more.

 

Cat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, why do women get all up in arms about Edward Cullen's controlling behavior?? He's a vampire, maybe controlling is normal for him??

 

I'm not sensitive. I'm a bit appalled that women still like Jamie.

 

I think Edward is WAY worse than Jamie, at least the Jamie of the later books.  Maybe he had to be r*ped himself to get it.  Maybe that's the point of that absurd plot.  Jamie lets Claire be herself.  Edward turns Bella into his own ideal.

 

Both series glorify romantic love in a way that I think is unrealistic.  At some points, the way Jamie and Claire's passion mellows with age is nice to me.  They still have it for each other but the drama is gone...  except then she had to go and ruin that with the whole he dies and she is going to kill herself until Lord John sleeps with her or something.  Whatever.  That whole book was a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, I AM NOT swooning over Jamie, he is a product of his time as another poster put it. Wouldn't care to meet the guy. Not interested in living in that time (I like running,heated water and toilets thank you very much). Didn't read the Edward books, no desire to, vampires etc put me off. I also am reading it for historical/scotland/nurse/doctor/frontier thing. To be honest besides the first book, I haven't noticed the s@x much. It is escape reading. I do tend though to skip over some paragraphs (like with Randall and Jamie scenes, iykwim). That is all, I don't think anyone is trying to compare it to literature LOL! I will not be basing a curriculum off it. (can you imagine  :lol: ). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hated that part, but I hated it for Claire. It was a different time and it was normal then. It's not the same as it would have been if the same scene had taken place in 2014. Not to excuse the behavior exactly, but it truly wasn't seen as abuse in any way at the time. I don't compare it to BDSM at all. It wasn't meant to be s3xual, he was punishing her. And if HE hadn't done it, someone else would have taken matters into their own hands. I may not like the way women were treated in that time, but that's the way it was. To me it's kind of like getting upset about a book where the main characters have slaves and think nothing of it. It wasn't right, but it's historically accurate.

 

ETA: You also grow to love him through the books. People can be forgiven even for pretty bad things. Have you read beyond that scene? Beyond book 1? Those of us who swoon over Jamie have read 7 and a half books of him past his not-so-swoon-worthy scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That part didn't bother me because I think the same would have happened to a man who disobeyed.

 

So, Jamie, who knows the very real dangers of 1700s Scotland, tells Claire not to do something. He tells her, in front of the men he is leading into danger, "Don't do that, or I'll whip you." He tells her this because she's living in a 20th century mindset and keeps getting people into trouble not understanding 1700's dangers.

 

He would have said the same thing to a man who kept endangering everyone's lives.

 

Well, she doesn't listen. She gets the entire group in mortal danger.

 

And now, Jamie has to make good on his threat. His men are furious with Claire. They could have all been killed. If Jamie doesn't discipline her, in a military sense (because they're set up in a military manner with a leader who issues orders and needs completely obedience), then they'll take matters into their own hands, just as any soldiers may feel inclined to do if one of the troops is disobeying and almost getting them killed. They may have even killed her, we just don't know. It's a matter of their own survival at this point.

 

Claire is astounded that he'd actually make good on the threat, but that's because she's never run into this situation in the 1940s, which is when she's from.

 

Jamie isn't happy about doing this, and it's not necessarily sexual. As a man from the 1770s (I think it was) he cannot understand why she keeps putting them in mortal danger. She's totally not getting it, that Scotland is a wild, lawless place in the 1700s. If she were a man and did what she did, Jamie may have punched her in the face a few times or had her tied to a post and whipped publicly. Since she's a woman, he whips her in privacy, but lets the others hear so they know the infraction has been dealt with.

 

That's how I saw it. I didn't see it as a man spanking a woman. She insisted on being part of their group in the role of a makeshift soldier, and as such, she was expected to obey the leader and was susceptible to the consequences of disobeying the leader. I saw it as a commanding officer punishing a disobedient soldier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you're not the only one. I didn't like Outlander and don't see the appeal. I mean, I don't particularly like romance novels and I'll admit, I am a prude - so this plays in it as well for me. It's one thing to have a sex scene here or there--but my word! It's almost every-other-page and it goes on and on for pages! Seriously? What about plot. I've been told that the other books it isn't quite so much, but I don't really feel like finding out...I was so put off by the first book. And, like I said, I don't really like romance--- I really wanted to like this one because its about time-travel and Scotland...

 

And yeah, I am surprised at how many women give that spanking scene a pass...but then again. I don't get why women loved "50 Shades of Gray" either. From what I've heard about that book, it seems pretty demeaning to women.

 

I wish I could find it but many years ago there was a meme about the movie Titanic (and maybe others too) about the doubled standard....(ie. mean guys can't cheat on their girls, but pretty sweet girls can)

50 Shades Of Gray is not a great book but I did not find it demeaning to women. Going into a BDSM relationship with eyes wide open, and a partner that respects you , and makes sure you are comfortable, and have a safe word that STOPS everything instantly at the women's request , etc is not the same as a man spanking a woman to her surprise & shame.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The inconsistencies in the story bothered me more than anything.

 

I'm an army wife. There is NO WAY any warrior of ANY era would hand a woman a naked blade to stick in her pocket. If it was properly sharpened, it would have almost immediately put a hole in her pocket. And I don't think dresses had pockets back then, that's why they wore aprons and/or objects attached to them in other ways.

 

Examples:

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1187/1327/1600/407360/pockets.jpg

 

http://www.memorialhall.mass.edu/activities/dressup/notflash/1700_woman.html

 

A lot of the writing just seemed unresearched and lazy. But, maybe I read more than the typical number of historical novels. I've also only read the first one, so maybe the others are better? The first one wasn't interesting enough for me to continue, I don't think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, you're not alone.  I found the whole book just sorta blah. 

 

After hearing the hype about it from friends and relatives, I was expecting a very well-written book.  It's ok, but not outstanding.   I have no desire to read any of the rest of the series. 

 

I think that Outlander is mainstream enough to attract readers who typically avoid SF and Fantasy genres, and they don't know that better stuff is out there.

I agree. There are much better fantasy novels, even some with steamy elements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That part didn't bother me because I think the same would have happened to a man who disobeyed.

 

So, Jamie, who knows the very real dangers of 1700s Scotland, tells Claire not to do something. He tells her, in front of the men he is leading into danger, "Don't do that, or I'll whip you." He tells her this because she's living in a 20th century mindset and keeps getting people into trouble not understanding 1700's dangers.

 

He would have said the same thing to a man who kept endangering everyone's lives.

 

Well, she doesn't listen. She gets the entire group in mortal danger.

 

And now, Jamie has to make good on his threat. His men are furious with Claire. They could have all been killed. If Jamie doesn't discipline her, in a military sense (because they're set up in a military manner with a leader who issues orders and needs completely obedience), then they'll take matters into their own hands, just as any soldiers may feel inclined to do if one of the troops is disobeying and almost getting them killed. They may have even killed her, we just don't know. It's a matter of their own survival at this point.

 

Claire is astounded that he'd actually make good on the threat, but that's because she's never run into this situation in the 1940s, which is when she's from.

 

Jamie isn't happy about doing this, and it's not necessarily sexual. As a man from the 1770s (I think it was) he cannot understand why she keeps putting them in mortal danger. She's totally not getting it, that Scotland is a wild, lawless place in the 1700s. If she were a man and did what she did, Jamie may have punched her in the face a few times or had her tied to a post and whipped publicly. Since she's a woman, he whips her in privacy, but lets the others hear so they know the infraction has been dealt with.

 

That's how I saw it. I didn't see it as a man spanking a woman. She insisted on being part of their group in the role of a makeshift soldier, and as such, she was expected to obey the leader and was susceptible to the consequences of disobeying the leader. I saw it as a commanding officer punishing a disobedient soldier.

 

It has been awhile since I read the first book, but later on when he finds out WHY she did what she did, he apologizes. By then he knows about or is learning where she came from.  We like to judge people from other times with our "enlightened" way of thinking.  But for that time he did the least he could do and still retain the respect of his men and keep her safe.  I love Jamie and Claire.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The inconsistencies in the story bothered me more than anything.

 

I'm an army wife. There is NO WAY any warrior of ANY era would hand a woman a naked blade to stick in her pocket. If it was properly sharpened, it would have almost immediately put a hole in her pocket. And I don't think dresses had pockets back then, that's why they wore aprons and/or objects attached to them in other ways.

 

Examples:

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1187/1327/1600/407360/pockets.jpg

 

http://www.memorialhall.mass.edu/activities/dressup/notflash/1700_woman.html

 

A lot of the writing just seemed unresearched and lazy. But, maybe I read more than the typical number of historical novels. I've also only read the first one, so maybe the others are better? The first one wasn't interesting enough for me to continue, I don't think.

 

She is far from lazy and researches A LOT. She never set out to sell a novel. She was doing it for herself and had an unexpected take off. Originally she wasn't going to share what she wrote with anyone.

 

 

...

I think that Outlander is mainstream enough to attract readers who typically avoid SF and Fantasy genres, and they don't know that better stuff is out there. I was very disappointed - it reminded me more of an extended Harlequin Romance than anything else.

 

...

I read a lot of fantasy and this is my favorite series. I wouldn't classify them as fantasy though. They don't really fit into any one genre. A little sci-fi, a little romance, a lot historical fiction.... I've seen others comment on them being romance (elsewhere, I don't mean just here) and I don't see them that way. (nor does Diana btw). The romance is secondary to the main story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Research seems to be a passion for her. I think the first was an unexpected hit for her. The succeeding volumes are very well researched. Meticulously.

 

Yes, Gabaldon never intended/expected Outlander to be published; she just wanted to try it to "see what it was like." She has a million science degrees or something.

 

 

I'm an unapologetic feminist, but the spanking scene didn't overly bother me, and this is why:

 

1. It's a novel. Fiction. I've never read a decent novel that didn't have bothersome parts in it. That doesn't always mean I throw the baby out with the bathwater.

2. It's fiction set in the mid 1700s. Husband/wife relationships in the 18th century were not, generally, anything like they are today. It was not a surprising reaction.

3. I'm not emotionally invested in Jaime as a character and I don't give him a pass; I simply understand that, given the time frame and the circumstances, it was not anything out of the ordinary. He was very young, it was a very dangerous circumstance, and it was expected of him. That doesn't excuse it, but it's not hard to see how he arrived at the decision.

4. I don't find Claire's response to be disturbing, either. If you've read the rest of the books, you know Claire is a very strong woman, and her and Jaime's relationship is very...modern...and egalitarian, especially given the timeframe. When she admits he was right, I don't see that as accepting that it was ok for him to beat her, I see that as accepting that, despite the strong, independent woman that she is, she was deserved of a wake-up call. 18th century Scotland is dangerous in ways she couldn't have imagined, and she needs to know she can't handle every situation on her own. Just like I wouldn't go sky-diving without following the explicit instructions of a certified expert, Claire realizes and admits she's a bit over her head here.

5. It's just the beginning. Both characters learn and grow quite a bit over the course of the novels. Also, there are a LOT of other interesting characters in the novels. It's not all Jaime and Claire.

 

Anyhow, I don't want it to seem like I'm making excuses for Jaime's behavior; I'm not. It wasn't ok, but it's part of the story. And it's just a small blip on the radar given the length and number of novels. There are plenty of other things I wasn't exactly enamored with, but I found enough fun stuff in the books to enjoy them overall. It's good fluff--for me. It won't be everyone's cup of tea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is far from lazy and researches

 

I didn't say anything about HER. I specifically said the writing in the first book seemed lazy and not researched. I gave some examples. If you say that she didn't intend to publish it, then that partly explains why it wasn't well researched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Another One

Someone watch the TV show and tell me if they include that scene. I bet not.

Per an article that came up on a very fast google search they plan to include it. 

 

This may or my not be true. Just want popped up in the 30 seconds I spent researching this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything about HER. I specifically said the writing in the first book seemed lazy and not researched. I gave some examples. If you say that she didn't intend to publish it, then that partly explains why it wasn't well researched.

 

There's a big difference between the first book and the rest of them for me in this regard.  I was repeatedly bothered by the problem of language in the first book.  Why is no one speaking Gaelic?  By the end, she's figured it out.  There are other things in there that are similar - like your mention of the blade.  I think she got better at research, honestly.  The later books have a lot more clear historical detail than the first.  That said, I'm sure there are still issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking more about the spanking scene.  Research about spanking and children suggests that children who are spanked when spanking is the cultural norm are not really harmed by it.  Children who are spanked when spanking is not the cultural norm are emotionally harmed.  I think it's really about that clash of cultures more than anything BDSM or anything demeaning to Claire or even anything sexist.

 

Shrug.  They're not really *good* books.  I just read them anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kept hearing how fabulous this book is. Time travel? Scotland? Romance? Sounded like something I would enjoy. 

 

 

 

:glare: I made it through about half of the book - I kept thinking it had to get better! - but after Claire spotted the Loch Ness monster (after running away, of course) and several beatings, r**es, attempted ra*es, I just had to give up.

 

I agree with clemota, I think many women who read this series don't realize there is MUCH better stuff out there to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh do tell us all what we should be reading then. I must just not realize.

 

This would be a fair response if the question was "What is wrong with women who like this series?" But it wasn't. It was asking if others disliked it for the same reason. Several of us did.

 

Honestly, I have heard enough raves that I've considered reading later books in the series.  There are lots of series that get better over time.  But the first book really put me off, and not just the spanking.  It seems to me to be fantasy for romance novel readers, not a romance for fantasy novel readers.  Romance novels seem to be more loose & fast with the rules (with s*x, relationship, historical accuracy....) where fantasy is like sci fi: it's not 'just a book', it has to make sense on its own terms or it's not worth reading.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will be spoilers in my post.

 

 

 

So many women just SWOON over Jamie and I like romance novels so I read the book to see what all the fuss was about.

 

I am no prude.  I have NO ISSUE with BDSM in literature or real life between consenting adults.  I assumed most women felt the same way--consent is important!!

 

I was really shocked at the spanking scene.  Not at the spanking but that so many women just go on and on about how wonderful Jamie is even after they read that scene??

 

Why does Jamie get a pass??  Because he is hunky and apologetic??  Do most women secretly want to be with a brute??

 

I don't get it.

 

I'm going back to read the whole thread now, but I complete agree!  In fact, I stopped reading the book at that very scene.  I just couldn't stomach any more.  Jamie was an absolute jerk and the woman was a doormat.  No thank you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not alone. I'm not sure why I even forced myself to finish that first book. I found that scene disturbing. I guess I kept reading because I was trying to see if I could figure out what I was missing, since so many women raved about this series. I finally decided I wasn't missing anything. I really didn't like that whole book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it was a response to the post immediately above it which said many women maybe just don't know there are better things out there.

I think actually many women do know what else is available and still enjoy this series anyway.

 

I wasn't trying to offend anyone.

 

If you enjoy it, fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I don't care for that scene but I did enjoy the series overall.  As others have stated it needs to be considered as part of the timeperiod and I think it shows the clash between the 20th century culture she came from and the 18th century she ended up in.  It's not at all a Bondage or sexual thing.  And it's not done out of anger.  It happens because she has recklessly endangered the lives of several members of the group, not to mention hurt their mission, and they are angry with her.  She won't be respected by the men unless she is punished.  So while it's pretty disgusting to me, it's a good example of the culture she is experiencing. 

 

As part of this process she reflects on the fact that she has not been taking the dangers of her situation very seriously because it still feels unreal to her and she did endanger both herself and the men and especially Jamie.

 

I didn't feel the plot was about sex at all.  In the first book, there is a lot of development of the bond between Claire and Jaime which involves both talking and sex, which felt realistic for a relationship between young adults.  But there is also quite a bit more going on in the plot.

 

The 8th book has a bit of unnecessary sex in it in my opinion - I just didn't need the descriptions of the consummation for the two sets of newlyweds.  C&J's relationship is the core of the book and I get that sex is part of their relationship.  I can maybe also follow the Brianna & Roger relationship as another central story.  But adding in two more random couples was over the top I thought.  Also the frequent use of the verb 'blink' started to get extremely annoying.

 

I don't think Outlander is the end all be all of historical fiction, but overall I am still enjoying this series very much!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Outlander is mainstream enough to attract readers who typically avoid SF and Fantasy genres, and they don't know that better stuff is out there. I was very disappointed - it reminded me more of an extended Harlequin Romance than anything else.

 

I like sex driven by plot, not plot driven by sex.

 

I am torn in how to respond to this comment.  On the one hand, I completely disagree that the plot was driven by sex in Outlander and I find your "they don't know that better stuff is out there" comment to sound somewhat condescending.  Maybe your statement is true, or maybe it's possible for people to read the same book and have a different opinion without some being unworldly fools.

 

On the other hand, I am always looking for good books to read, especially historical fiction series, and I would genuinely love to hear your book suggestions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't like Pillars of the Earth. I thought he dwelled a bit too much on the abuse towards women (especially rape) and I found his writing uneven. It's a good story, but those things turned me off from reading any more.

 

I know women were treated poorly back then. I don't enjoy details on it though, and I find male authors who focus on it a bit too much to be creepy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those of you who didn't like Outlander but do like historical fiction, did you like Ken Follett's Pillars of The Earth (1&2) or Century Trilogy (1&2)?

 

I know this isn't exactly what you're asking, because I did like Outlander, but I wasn't a huge fan of Ken Follett's stuff. I read Pillars of the Earth but wasn't interested in reading the sequel. I agree with livetoread--it had potential, but I kept getting put off by the constant abuse. I was fine with it (well, not fine with it, but you know what I mean--fine with it in context, that it was important to the story) but it was too much. I mean, how just many times was Aliena going to get knocked down and lose everything because of some sadistic man? It got old. It was just a slightly different variation on the same theme over and over and over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...