I Just Do The Best I Can (No Future)
I’ll Explain Later
No Future is the final book of the Alternate History cycle, and the third book in Paul Cornell’s loosely themed quartet. It features the resolution to the tensions among the TARDIS crew, as well as the return of the Vardans, the Meddling Monk, UNIT, and a Chronovore. Paul Cornell himself is on record as not being fond of the book, and nor was Craig Hinton at the time, saying that “we’ve seen it all before” and that “it doesn’t live up to expectations.” Thad said, he rather inexplicably describes Cornell’s writing style as “street-cred cyberpunk,” which really ought disqualify his viewpoints. (That he expresses disbelief that Ace would betray the Doctor over Jan when, in fact, that’s a complete red herring and the point is that Ace wouldn’t betray the Doctor over Jan makes this even more frustrating. I mean, I don’t usually thwap the reviewers here, but this one is a crappy review.) Lars Pearson is more praiseful, calling it “one of the strongest novels.” Fan consensus tends to side with him, putting it at sixteenth of the sixty-one New Adventures. DWRG Summary. Whoniverse Discontinuity Guide entry.
——
It’s February of 1994. D:Ream are still at number one with “Things Can Only Get Better.” Two weeks later it’s Mariah Carey with “Without You,” which closes out the month. This is uninspiring, as is the collection of other things to chart: Toni Braxton, Celine Dion, Reel 2 Real, and Ace of Base, the latter, inevitably, with “The Sign.” More fitting for the book we have on tap, Tori Amos’s Under the Pink debuts at number one, her lone number one album in the UK charts.
In news, Byron De La Beckwith is finally convicted for the 1963 murder of Medgar Evers, an American civil rights leader. He had previously twice avoided conviction when all-white juries deadlocked on his guilt. In one of these trials a former governor of Mississippi interrupted the trial to shake Beckwith’s hand. In Norway, “The Scream” is stolen in Oslo on the same day that the Winter Olympics open in Lillehammer. Police excavate the garden of Fred West, a serial killer, in Gloucester. And the Bosnian War drags brutally on.
While in literature, we have a Doctor Who book that tries to extend the UNIT era the few years further into the punk era, finally tackling the one great subculture that Doctor Who never fully embraced. In which Doctor Who finally makes direct reference to the Situationists and deals with anarchism as a social movement and philosophy instead of a vaguely defined tendency. One that smashes together huge swaths of continuity, revamping UNIT for the umpteenth time. And one that finally tackles and sorts out the tensions among the TARDIS crew. It is, in other words, a staggeringly ambitious, big novel. Clearly the only person who could be trusted to write it is Paul Cornell, at this point by far the established “marquee” writer for the Virgin line.
The book itself has a reputation for being a bit disjointed. Paul Cornell himself has largely dismissed it as a trainwreck of too many things going on at once. And while it’s certainly the weakest of Cornell’s three New Adventures that we’ve covered to date, and, I’ll go out on a limb here, probably the weakest of his five overall, this is largely an overstatement. If anything, what’s surprising about No Future is that for all of its disparate elements it’s a very unified book with a clear point to make. It is, however, a dense one, and we are a bit spoiled for choice as to which thread to pull first.
Let’s pick the setting first, since it’s the one gestured at by the title, which is of course the howling refrain of the Sex Pistols’ “God Save The Queen.” At long last we have overtly punk Doctor Who. This is, as we’ve noted before, one of the great gaps in Doctor Who. We made a show of linking The Sunmakers to punk as a sort of brief flourishing of it, but out of the many thousands of words of mildly strained points selected because they are sufficiently interesting to justify their tentativeness this has to be acknowledged as one of the bigger reaches I’ve gone for. Yes, The Sunmakers has a sort of anarchistic anger to it, but the idea of it appealing to a punk sensibility is laughable. The idea of most of Doctor Who appealing to a punk sensibility is laughable. Post-punk, sure. Doctor Who can do loads of stuff with post-punk. But punk itself is far too invested in the sincerity of its own rebelliousness to sit down and watch a ropey old BBC kid’s show.
But this marked an odd sort of problem. Doctor Who disengaged with Earth right around the time of punk’s rise, with The Hand of Fear and its abandonment of the standard Earth companion structure coinciding with The Sex Pistols getting signed to EMI, and the release of “Anarchy in the UK” coming six days after the end of The Deadly Assassin. Punk was what Doctor Who missed, the very thing it turned away from. Cornell makes quite a show in No Future of pointing out the bad times that loom over 1976, but secondary to that is the fact that Doctor Who largely avoided those fights. By the time the Cartmel era and its anti-Thatcher fire arrived Thatcher had already won her last election. Thatcher was the monster Doctor Who never faced, at least, not at her terrifying prime. And Doctor Who’s turn away from Earth at the dawn of punk is oddly inextricable from that, just as punk and Thatcher are themselves two different sides of the same coin, the inevitable hell that had to be paid in the aftermath of 1968.
So Doctor Who is stuck still playing the same old War Games. The challenge of the Pertwee era stands largely unanswered. The Doctor was cast down to Earth, yes. He recovered and redeemed himself, yes. But something about that mandate towards genuine engagement with the material was never fulfilled. We were told the secret to alchemy was material social progress, but no sooner than the words were uttered we ran from the socially material. Even before that, though, is the weird tension of the Pertwee era – its embrace of the establishment inevitably read as a response against the mercurial anarchy of the Troughton era. The two aren’t irreconcilable, but there’s an irreducible tension between them. And this is a Cornell book, so it’s no surprise where he falls. The book drips with suspicion of the Pertwee era and of UNIT.
Over in the comments section on Jack Graham’s Shabogan Graffiti, a phenomenal blog that, depending on the day, either spares me the trouble or denies me the honor of being the most blatantly leftist agitprop Doctor Who blogger around, Jack and I (along with frequent-commenter Josh Marsfelder) have been going back and forth over the question of whether an overtly Marxist Doctor would be a good idea (given, after all, that an overtly default western liberal Doctor is altogether standard). My contention is that aside from the obvious reasons why the BBC is never, ever going to have their flagship family series begin openly spouting Marxist propaganda, the truth is that Doctor Who has always had an inherent sympathy towards Situationist tactics inasmuch as those tactics involve parodic reappropriation of cultural icons and a desire to overthrow the established structures of power. On a basic level a series about screwing around with the conventions of other types of narrative with a main character who likes toppling governments is going to be at home with that particular flavor of radical Marxism. And in a real way the divergence of Doctor Who and contemporary Earth with The Hand of Fear was a bit of a misstep for Doctor Who. The lost engagement with Earth coincided with Mary Whitehouse’s devastatingly effective blow on the series and its slumping towards mediocrity. The road not taken, Doctor Who’s overt engagement with punk and its neo-Situationist tactics, is in a real sense a reconnection with the program’s history.
But the position that the Doctor is a Marxist figure outright is flawed, simply because that’s not all he is. It’s an important strain of the series’ DNA, but it is not the entire story. Cornell makes this explicit in a fantastic scene where an anarchist leader and the Brigadier meet, with the anarchist declaring the Doctor to be a hero of their movement and an anarchist, while the Brigadier claims that “the Doctor symbolizes the best values of British life. Eccentricity, the creative amateur, and civilization.” And, of course, Cornell’s point is that both statements are true, and that this is the paradox of the Doctor. Doctor Who’s relationship with the varying trends of its time was hardly ever straightforward mimicry. It spent the late 1960s being torn apart by the tension between British imperial values and psychedelia. It spent the glam era making Ziggy Stardust into an action hero who worked with the military.
Which brings us to this present moment, in which Doctor Who has been drawn inexorably into the orbit of the grim and gritty “update” to classic properties. And Cornell lobs a very simple question at this entire aesthetic, asking, essentially, “so why should Doctor Who’s engagement with grim and gritty consist simply of Doctor Who being grim and gritty?” Which is, in hindsight, just about the most sensible question anyone has mustered about the whole Virgin era. And so Cornell sets up a straightforward little narrative collapse. The Doctor’s dark and manipulative games have driven everyone away. NewAce has finally become an outright villain. Everything is ruined forever and is terribly dark as London explodes in terrorist rage. However can we possibly survive?
But the texture of the narrative collapse is revealing. Perhaps the most significant detail is just who the villains are. No Future features a team-up of the Meddling Monk and the Vardans, with the Monk being assisted by a captured Chronivore. It’s a hilariously B-list set of villains, and Cornell absolutely revels in their crapness. Benny hilariously mocks the Vardans as the only race ever to be outwitted by the Sontarans, while the Vardans speak with awe at how the Monk “was technical adviser to both the Moroks and Yartek, leader of the alien Voord.” But, of course, they’re RETURNING VILLAINS! And thus inherently dangerous and terrifying, right? Of course not. Cornell is mocking the entire idea that “using a villain from the past” and “bracing epic” are somehow synonyms. Still, he plays at it for a while, letting the Monk run the table and play terrible tricks on the Doctor and manipulate Ace into apparently killing him.
But in the end, of course, Cornell gives up the ruse and admits that the entire structure of this narrative collapse is ridiculous. He hints at this resolution about halfway through, when he abruptly wraps up a plot in which the Brigadier appears to be a mind-controlled enemy agent by having the Brigadier suddenly about-face and be on the Doctor’s side after all, explaining that he’s adopted the Doctor’s Buddhist philosophy, which helped him resist the mind control. Because of course the Brigadier isn’t going to be a bad guy. Likewise, the entire plot of Ace appearing to betray the Doctor and join up with the Monk is done away with straightforwardly, with Ace explaining that of course she’s always been on the Doctor’s side, but that she saw the opportunity to play the double agent and took it.
The narrative collapse resolves by falling back on an inviolate principle of the narrative that is sufficient to escape the collapse’s inevitability. Things become impossibly bad and then, at the last moment, some principle of the narrative reasserts itself and says “ah, but the story works this way” and shoots down the collapse. The original narrative collapse in Doctor Who, The Chase, traded on the fact that Doctor Who changes stories, so at the end of six episodes the TARDIS crew basically decides they’re bored with being chased around by Daleks and wander off to the next story. As they do at the end of every story. This time the resolution is equally simple: the Doctor and his companions have a tremendous amount of fun. Traveling on the TARDIS is fun. That’s Cornell’s resolution to his big narrative collapse. That’s his resolution to the TARDIS crew all hating each other. “Oh yes, this is all great fun.” Which is, of course, the perfect response to all of the problems that Doctor Who has been having in this era. “By the way, Doctor Who is really fun.” Which most of the books had been forgetting. Even the requisite price of resolving the narrative collapse is elided in good fun. Yes, the Brigadier dies, but even that is undone as Ace uses the freed Chronivore to undo that. Sure, some sort of terrible price has to be paid to get away with escaping the villain’s trap, but why should we have to be so depressed about it?
And I think it’s fair to argue that there’s a turning point in the New Adventures line here. The books do cheer up after this. They do start being willing to just… enjoy being Doctor Who. The next two books we’re going to look at are outright larks, and the trend continues with some regularity across the rest of the line. Sure, there are some very dour books ahead, but No Future seems to draw a line across the New Adventures, marking the point where they’re finally ready to have some fun again. I don’t think it’s that big a limb to suggest that the passage of the thirtieth anniversary was a big part of this switch, but equally No Future is, by and large, a book about navigating that switch. The TARDIS crew remembers how to be a Doctor Who cast again, and the line of books follows.
But the result does, and I think this is what Cornell reacts against in his own book, make for a bit of a mess. It has to. Cornell’s book is a repair job on a malfunctioning series. Of course it’s messy, because what it’s starting from is a mess. The book is starting from a context where its ridiculous conceit of having the Meddling Monk be the supreme manipulator who has been plaguing the Doctor for five months now makes sense. Because, of course, the mysterious foe alluded to since Blood Heat has to be someone from series history. There has to be a big “season finale” style payoff to the arc. And while the point of Cornell’s book is that, actually, no, there doesn’t have to be and we could do just fine with having fun there’s a necessary messiness. No Future only works if it is an overblown, oversized mess of influences and ideas. Because its end point is that all of that is secondary to the basic fact that Doctor Who only works if there is joy in it. That doesn’t mean rejecting complexity and darkness. Cornell is a master of both. But it does mean remembering that maybe, just maybe, a story about a mad eccentric who travels through space and time in a phone booth should be fun.
October 5, 2012 @ 1:02 am
I found this book hilarious, and one of the most enjoyable of the NA's I've read so far. "Chap with Wings, five rounds rapid" had me laughing out loud in public, no matter how tortuous the setup was. Not only was the book fun, it was funny.
December 3, 2023 @ 6:13 pm
It’s my favorite pun from anything Doctor Who-related, ever.
October 5, 2012 @ 1:26 am
I loved this book, it's probably my favourite of the Cornells (which doesn't of course mean it's the best), and you nail the reason why: joy as the answer. Marvellous.
(my first comment ever, hello etc etc)
October 5, 2012 @ 2:18 am
This was the first New Adventure I read all the way through. Loved it.
One thing that always caught my attention was the scene where two of the punk band members are talking about (SPOILER) the terrorists blowing up Big Ben, and one of them breathlessly talks about how the terrorists have finally done something 'meaningful' whereas the other points out that all they've really done is blow up 'a sweet old clock'. Which (I think anyway) says something quite interesting about both the power of symbolism and the problems of viewing symbolism and it's power as the end goal in itself, as (it seems to me anyway) a lot of Marxist / anarchist / Situationist-style thinkers have a tendency to fall into the trap of doing — since in a way, they're both right. Since, yes, they've struck a symbolic blow against the political establishment, but at the same time the only end result is that they've destroyed a beautiful old building.
October 5, 2012 @ 3:04 am
This is also my first comment ever — in MY timeline. But not, I gather, in yours.
October 5, 2012 @ 4:52 am
I just love this novel; probably my favorite NA.
The portrayal of the Meddling Monk is just wonderful.
October 5, 2012 @ 8:13 am
Material social progress is the secret to alchemy, but the underlying principle of alchemy is expressed as thus:
Cornell makes this explicit in a fantastic scene where an anarchist leader and the Brigadier meet, with the anarchist declaring the Doctor to be a hero of their movement and an anarchist, while the Brigadier claims that “the Doctor symbolizes the best values of British life. Eccentricity, the creative amateur, and civilization.”
This unification of oppositions is the alchemical marriage, embracing and reveling in contradiction. And this is why the Doctor can never be limited to a Marxist position, because that position is on one end of a polarity, rejecting its mirror image and anything that resembles its mirror image. (It's also why the Doctor can never be limited to a Capitalistic position, for precisely the same reason. Funny how they look like mirror-twins when viewed from a certain angle. This is why mercury is such a quintessential alchemical symbol.)
But this also has implications for the "secret of alchemy," which is that of material social progress. This too has an Other Side, which is that of individual spiritual progress (or individual emotional progress, if you're anaethema to words like "spiritual.") The two go hand-in-hand, like lovers.
And from the review above, it seems Cornell understands this, given all the unification of opposites going one, from Ace being a double-agent to the Brigadier's death and resurrection, mixing in fun as an antidote to grim grittiness, drawing from the past to point to the future, while calling it "no future," and even inverting the other principle of alchemy, the interchangeability of symbols and objects, hence the bit about The Clock.
And Phil, just gotta say I appreciate your coverage of the novels, even though I'm not reading the books myself, because it's really illuminating to what's going on in the current series. Thank you.
October 5, 2012 @ 12:06 pm
I love that moment when you realise that nearly the entire plot has been written as set up for that single joke. Cornell even nearly admits it in the acknowledgements section. It's pretty brilliant.
By the way, does anyone else see a direct similarity between this story and the finale of Season 3 of the New Series? The entire idea of the Monk using radio satellites to control people, the Vardans filling basically the same role as the Toclafane? At least, it's closer than Spare Parts is to Rise of the Cybermen.
October 5, 2012 @ 11:16 pm
"This unification of oppositions is the alchemical marriage, embracing and reveling in contradiction." The unity of opposites is also an aspect of 'dialectical materialism' as elaborated by Engels.
"And this is why the Doctor can never be limited to a Marxist position, because that position is on one end of a polarity, rejecting its mirror image and anything that resembles its mirror image." I don't think Marxism is the 'opposite' of capitalism or anything like that. It has frequently, and in various ways, been practiced (mispracticed perhaps} as a discourse within, and essentially at peace with, capitalism. It has historically been nowhere near as good as it should've been at rejecting its opposites. On the plus side, this means it has the strength to function alongside things that many would consider antithetical to it. Benjamin's adoption of Marxism in addition to his Jewish mysticism was extraordinarily fecund.
"(It's also why the Doctor can never be limited to a Capitalistic position" Well, much as I try to cultivate optimism of the will, my pessimism of the intellect makes me think that the Doctor probably is fundamentally and inescapably linked to a 'Capitalistic' position. The moments when he seems near to slipping it are rare and very peculiar, i.e. 'The Sun Makers', in which he actually does flirt with Marxism (much more so than Anarchism, in my opinion) and the moment is as uncomfortable as it is enjoyable, hence all the code words (i.e. "the vicious doctrine of egalitarianism")
"Funny how they look like mirror-twins when viewed from a certain angle." Hmmm. That seems like an empty statement to me. Just about any random set of things can look like mirror-twins when viewed from the right (or wrong) angle. it's true that Marxism is born from capitalist society and so features some of the birthmarks of that society… but what's really fascinating about it is how it transforms these birthmarks through its dialectics. The promethean attitude to nature often (wrongly) identified within it is, in fact, a transformed version of C19th capitalist utilitarianism towards nature, transformed into an extraordinarily sophisticated view of humanity and nature locked into rythms that social forces can push out of alignment.
And I say this as someone who doesn't really see how a Marxist Doctor would be possible in any sense… let along desirable.
October 6, 2012 @ 7:04 am
Indeed, the applications of alchemical thinking by Hegel and Engels to history and economics were inspired, and inspiring. But the "fusion of opposites" goes a long way back, in both the Eastern and the Western philosophies, and as much in regard to how we see ourselves as the world around us.
You're right to point out that the Left/Right dichotomy is a false one; there's much more in common, and much more diversity, in political discourse than such a schematic would suggest. But this is part of the intent of "alchemical fusion," to break down this mode of thinking. Thank you.
(And hello, Benjamin! I wonder what he'd have to say about the ability to download our own copies of Doctor Who and examine it frame-by-frame, in almost complete antithesis to how film was understand in his time.)
When it comes to the Doctor, he's rarely participatory in economic processes. Does he produce goods and services for sale? No. He's got a machine that takes care of all the basic necessities of his material existence, no labor but his own required; its moveability suggests personal property, not private property. And aside from those very few instances you've elucidated elsewhere, he rarely engages with the conditions of production as practiced by others, either.
It has historically been nowhere near as good as it should've been at rejecting its opposites. On the plus side, this means it has the strength to function alongside things that many would consider antithetical to it.
While both Marxism and Doctor Who practice their own forms of recuperation, they have yet to master the technique with the devastating efficiency of capitalism.
October 6, 2012 @ 9:05 am
Recuperation is the key concept and you're right to say that capitalism does it better.
This is where I have an instinctive problem with PS's view of Doctor Who practicing detournement (though I've yet to properly study his statements regarding this and also lack his thorough familiarity with the Situationists). I tend to suspect that any detournement practiced within a text like Doctor Who is automatically recuperated through commodification and hegemony.
Without wishing to toot my own horn (especially just after PS has so kindly recommended my blog – again!) this very thing may be seen in my own analysis of 'Spearhead from Space', in which I see the Autons as gothic emblems of commodity fetishism which converge upon various other uneasy representations of capitalism in the story… but in which the sudden eruption of incoherent 'Weird' tentacles is a kind of desperate obfuscation at the thematic crux of the story (the factory where the Nestenes are being produced), blotting out the possible thematic convergence upon capitalism as a system. This could possibly be described as a detournment immediately recuperated within the text itself.
I think a Marxist Doctor would be immediately recuperated in a less dramatic and overt way. Indeed, I think 'The Sun Maker' probably demonstrates this happening! Even if it weren't, the very achievement of such a thing would have to entail the breaching of DW's identity as a text, to the point where it ceased to be itself and took on a different position altogether in the culture industry… which seems self-defeating too, if the aim was to bring out tendencies within the show (which I agree are there).
Maybe this feeds into what PS is analysing with regards to the New Adventures' discomfort at being Doctor Who. They are Doctor Who because they say they are, but they're in a decidedly new form and in a new niche in the culture industry. Maybe the NAs are the one place where the Marxist Doctor may have been possible. If so, Cornell's work (while very engaging and intelligent in all the ways PS mentions) might be seen as part of the foreclosure upon this possibility (amongst others).
October 6, 2012 @ 9:12 am
Ah, but the Situationists already account for that, acknowledging that all détournement is going to be recuperated eventually, requiring détournement to be not a single and successful act but an ongoing process that tries to keep ahead of the capitalist spectacle.
October 6, 2012 @ 12:49 pm
Fascinating. A kind of arms race. Or a dialectic.
I'm going to have to shut up about this until I've done some more reading. 🙂
October 6, 2012 @ 6:00 pm
This is why Blogger needs a Like button.
October 6, 2012 @ 6:05 pm
Caught up!
Bought EPUBs of both your books. They are the first ebooks I've ever actually paid for.
Seriously, this blog is amazing. I was very glad to read last post that you're only about a year younger than me; I thought it was closer to five years and I was feeling seriously inadequate.
October 7, 2012 @ 12:31 pm
… I LIKE DOCTOR WHO.
(I have NO idea what half the words you folks are using mean. But then my degree was in Nursing. Not to say that I don't enjoy reading them, and trying to follow along.
I wonder, is there some university that would give me part credits toward a media degree just for reading this blog?)
October 7, 2012 @ 12:49 pm
I've mostly been able to follow what Dr. Sandifer talks about, but this comment lost me around "automatically recuperated through commodification and hegemony".
October 7, 2012 @ 12:58 pm
To be fair, that was Jack, not me. 🙂
But the primer:
Détournement I assume you have via my blog by now, but if not, it's the use of context-breaking parodic juxtapositions to undermine those in power.
Recuperation is its opposite – the process by which those in power normalize what is radical so that it loses its ability to undermine existing power structures. So what Jack is concerned about is that if something like Doctor Who engages in détournement it's going to be fruitless. First of all, Doctor Who is too commercial and bound up in the existing capitalist order of things to détourn (commoditization), and second of all, the BBC is too much a structure of power to be able to offer a radical possibility (hegemony).
October 7, 2012 @ 8:11 pm
Aha.
That's silly.
(Actually, I have paragraphs upon paragraphs of why I think that the idea that the parodic undermining of those in power being absorbed into the mainstream somehow takes away its ability to affect said people in power is not only wrong, but the complete opposite of how it does and should work, but my brain is rather fried, so "that's silly" is about the best I can muster at the moment. Thank you very much, however, for making these concepts lucid to the layman.)
October 8, 2012 @ 11:59 am
I'm surprised you didn't comment on the Mediasphere, which strikes me as both a great example of how much fun Cornell is having and the sort of "interacting with the nature of story" concept you like. Did Conundrum put you off the idea?
IIRC, the Doctor has a single line of technobabble to cover the fact that it makes no sense at all, and Cornell just fancied doing a Land of Fiction for seventies britcoms (including a glorious Who/Up Pompeii mashup).
October 11, 2012 @ 11:35 pm
As I said, I'm talking about my suspicions rather than my certainties. I'm still thinking about this, so please come back with those paragraphs (if you want!). 🙂
"…takes away its ability to affect said people in power". I wasn't really talking about the effect on people in power… though, again, I suspect the overall effect upon them of parodic undermining is pretty minimal. Usually. I know David Steel said Spitting Image ruined his credibility…
And, just for the record, I'm a layman too. Which may be why my usage of the jargon can sometimes be a bit clunky. 🙂
April 5, 2015 @ 7:07 am
https://www.facebook.com/bantalsilikongrosir
http://bantalsilikon01.blogspot.com/2014/12/a.html
http://jualsangkarpleci.blogspot.com/2014/12/a.html
http://kopiluwakliar01.blogspot.com/2014/12/a.html
http://vvty.in/uncategorized/marinir-seo/
http://marinirseo.blogspot.com/2014/12/a.html
http://marinir-seo.blogspot.com/2014/12/a.html
http://bumbu-pecel-malang.blogspot.com/2014/12/a.html
http://distro-seo.blogspot.com/2014/12/a.html
http://restoran-seo.blogspot.com/2014/12/a.html
http://bantalmalangmurah.blogspot.com/2014/12/a.html
http://distrobantal.blogspot.com/2014/12/a.html
http://kesethandukmalang.blogspot.com/2014/12/a.html
http://tasya.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jeannet.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://anne.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jelita.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://ruth.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://caca.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://brenda.marinirseo.web.id/?p=1 || http://tasya1.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jeannet1.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://anne1.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jelita1.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://ruth1.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://caca1.marinirseo.web.id/?p=5http://brenda1.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4 || http://tasya2.marinirseo.web.id/?p=5http://jeannet2.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://anne2.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jelita2.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://ruth2.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://caca2.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://brenda2.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://brenda3.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://tasya3.marinirseo.web.id/dua/http://jeannet3.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://anne3.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jelita3.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://ruth3.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://caca3.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4 || nhttp://brenda4.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://tasya4.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jeannet4.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://anne4.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jelita4.marinirseo.web.id/?p=5http://ruth4.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://caca4.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4 || http://tasya5.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://anne5.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jelita5.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://ruth5.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://caca5.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://synganne.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4
http://tasya.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jeannet.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://anne.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jelita.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://ruth.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://caca.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://brenda.marinirseo.web.id/?p=1 || http://tasya1.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jeannet1.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://anne1.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jelita1.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://ruth1.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://caca1.marinirseo.web.id/?p=5http://brenda1.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4 || http://tasya2.marinirseo.web.id/?p=5http://jeannet2.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://anne2.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jelita2.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://ruth2.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://caca2.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://brenda2.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://brenda3.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://tasya3.marinirseo.web.id/dua/http://jeannet3.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://anne3.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jelita3.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://ruth3.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://caca3.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4 || nhttp://brenda4.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://tasya4.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jeannet4.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://anne4.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jelita4.marinirseo.web.id/?p=5http://ruth4.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://caca4.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4 || http://tasya5.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://anne5.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://jelita5.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://ruth5.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://caca5.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4http://synganne.marinirseo.web.id/?p=4