A CONVERSATION WITH MARION BOYARS
Obscenity and Taboo. A Book On Trial. (cont)
McNAMARA: Wasnt the trial of LADY
CHATTERLYS LOVER in 1959? Didnt anybody learn
BOYARS: Well, they didnt actually have any other cases. Oh,
there were some pornography cases, but nothing that was claimed to be literature. And in
fact, some of our witnesses were people who had advised the Director of Public Prosecution
not to prosecute.
McNAMARA: Was there any such case afterward?
BOYARS: Oh, yes, many cases; but none of new works of literature,
they have never done new works of literature again.
McNAMARA: Can you think of books that might have fallen under the
category of obscenity in literature?
BOYARS: Oh, absolutely: I published one of them. I published STORY OF THE EYE, by Georges Bataille. (Books are listed at the end of
Part 3.) Its very short; its about childrens sexuality. And Bataille
was very subversive. I didnt want another court case -- you can do that only once in
your life, you cant do it more than once -- and so I put in it an essay by Susan
Sontag, called The Pornographic Imagination. Its marvelous, but very
general, not about this particular book. Roland Barthes wrote an essay which actually
dealt with this; its called The Metaphor of the Eye; I had it translated by
Jim Underwood. Roland Barthes was of course very respected.
I then also put in a Publishers Note: I took responsibility personally. Then we
sent it to the printer. He called me about two weeks later and he said, I cannot
print the book. Why not? Well, you know, the apprentices. --
theres always an apprentice. I said, All right: because the printer is
also the person responsible; certainly in England. They have got the right to say no; and
I think one has got to respect that. So I said, I completely understand, youre
under no obligation to print this book, dont worry, Ill find somebody else. --
You do realize, of course, that were publishing this book 50
years after publication in France; its actually a classic. And you do realize that
Georges Bataille was a Catholic, and a scholar, and he was just -- you know, just one of
those people who went against the stream. He was not a nobody, you know, not a
I saw that the printer knew all this. I talked about the book and its contents, and
Susan Sontag. And he said this, and I said that. And then he called me back the next day,
saying he couldnt put it down, and were going to print it; and he
did. And then, about two months later, Penguin bought it for the Modern Classics series.
Remember, I said, it will be a classic. The printer had said,
I remember your saying that. Well Ill tell you: when I told the printer
about Modern Classics, he said, Oh, thank God! Its fantastic: it has
sold thousands of copies.
The Publishers Note reads:
The shortness of this important erotic classic -- now translated into English for
the first time fifty years after its original French publication -- enables us to include
in this volume two essays that deal with the genre and style of Story of the Eye:
Susan Sontags essay on aspects of the literature of sex, The Pornographic
Imagination (from Styles of Radical Will, 1967)
explores a literary form that is, despite its manifold representation in English and
Continental writing, seldom accepted in our puritan Anglo-American canon. Roland
Barthes The Metaphor of the Eye (from the magazine Critique, 1963) discusses in depth the language of Story of the Eye, a
major example of French Surrealist writing, a movement which is at last beginning to
receive serious critical attention in England and the United States.
Obscenity, Censorship, and the Avant-Garde.
McNAMARA: The first trial of Hubert Selbys LAST
EXIT TO BROOKLYN was in 1966. You published Henry Miller [at
Calder & Boyars] before that.
BOYARS: But we were never prosecuted for that.
McNAMARA: Why was that, do you think? Was there a reason?
BOYARS: Well, we did something rather unusual: we wrote the
Director of Public Prosecutions, who in England decides whether a case is going to go
forward or not. We said, We are going to publish Henry Miller. McNAMARA:
You had reason to think you might be prosecuted.
BOYARS: Certainly: Henry Miller was very dangerous. There were
about five other publishers who wanted to publish him. The advance was the same for all of
them. We had put in our contract that, if we were prosecuted, we would fight; nobody else
was prepared to do that. That is why we got it.
So we wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions and said, This is what
were going to do. He wrote back, two days before publication -- the book was
already distributed -- saying he was not going to prosecute. This was 1963,
before the Hubert Selby book.
McNAMARA: They didnt give you a reason?
BOYARS: They thought the prosecution was not going to be
successful. They got copies of the book and had a panel of readers, and they wrote their
opinion. They couldnt prosecute then, because we would have produced the letter in
court. And that was the end of it. We were the only ones who knew, and we didnt tell
anyone. And then, we couldnt keep up with the printing!
McNAMARA: Because TROPIC OF CANCER caused
such an outrage?
BOYARS: Because we didnt tell anybody about the letter.
They sold the book under the counter.
McNAMARA: And they didnt have to?
BOYARS: Of course not; but they didnt know that. The book
cost 25 shillings at the time. Thousands of checks were sent us. We
lost a lot of money: we didnt know how to deal with this avalanche of checks and
cash, and in England you have to write an invoice for each book, otherwise youd be
cheating on tax. We didnt have the staff, we had to get people from the street to
help us, and they stole money. Still, that was TROPIC OF CANCER.
Then we wrote the same letter when we published LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN.
McNAMARA: And they decided to--
BOYARS: No, they didnt; they said, We have not
decided. Sorry to be unhelpful. In the end, it was a private prosecution. A Member
of Parliament, Sir Cyril Black, brought the charge. Private prosecution was then made
unlawful by Roy Jenkins, now Lord Jenkins, who was Home Secretary. He inserted a clause
into a criminal-justice bill. I went to see him: a very elegant man, wonderful, friendly,
etc. He said, Dont worry. Ill put in a clause. I said, Are
you going to debate this in Parliament? No, he said, because there
are thousands of clauses; theyre not even going to notice. And they
The Member of Parliament who brought the charge against the book was the object of
amusing, and self-defeating bit of mischief made by Maurice Girodias, publisher at the
Olympia Press of literature and high and low pornography.
McNAMARA: You knew Girodias.
BOYARS: I adored him!
BOYARS: Oh, he was the most charming man in the world, incredibly
generous. We used to go to Paris from time to time, Arthur and I, and wed go and sit
down in a restaurant; and we would say, Wed better leave the third chair
empty, because Girodias is bound to find us. And he always did! Not always, but many
times, many times. Whereupon the Champagne would flow, and he would pay the bill.
The last time I saw him, he had fallen on very difficult days.
McNAMARA: He also published Terry Southern [as did Marion Boyars:
BOYARS: Girodias was actually a very naive man. He was not very
cautious. He went from Paris -- he was thrown out of Paris publishing -- and he came to
England and started an imprint here, and was going to publish a book about Moral
Rearmament. The Moral Rearmament Society offered him £50,000 for
not publishing the book. Girodias, being a principled man, turned them down. Thereupon -- The
Times ran a whole page of bankruptcies -- they printed a page imitating The
Times bankruptcies page. It was not published by The Times but by the
Moral Rearmament people. It declared him bankrupt and said he was shutting down his
business. Whereupon, he went bankrupt. He was not rich. Another account of this story,
differing in details, but not in essence, appears in John de St. Jorres VENUS BOUND.The Erotic Voyage of the Olympia Press and Its Writers (1994.)
He then went to America and started another imprint there, and somehow didnt make
it work. One of the things he did was to publish a pornographic book, and he called it SIR CYRIL BLACK. Sir Cyril Black was the Member of Parliament who had
started the case against us over the Hubert Selby book. The book Girodias published was
not about him, but Girodias called it that. Then he wrote to me about it. I said,
Argue! (They were bringing a libel case against him.) Why dont you argue that
by sheer chance this is something you invented? Is there a Sir Cyril
Black? -- that sort of thing. Oh, no, he said, I am
defending you! I did it on purpose, as a revenge! Well. So, he was very
naive. Did you ever meet him?
McNAMARA: Ive only read about him.
BOYARS: You would have liked him. He had a nightclub in Paris --
this was unbelievable. This was very early in our acquaintance -- It was a lovely evening,
a private room, and I was a very naive young woman. He told me about flagellating people,
and described all sorts of sexual practices. (Laughs) He was a kitty-cat, he didnt
try to seduce me. But I didnt even know about these things, you know, I thought he
was very amusing, to try and frighten me. I liked him very much. And he was very unhappy
in New York. He married a Cabot or a Lodge, cant remember which one. [She was a
Cabot.] She was a doctor.
He went back to Paris in the end. He said to me once....
Were not talking business. This is a lot of gossip.
McNAMARA: It is, but were getting to issues.
The discussion turned to the internet -- she has had some copyright problems with
Microsoft over a book which she had published and which they later re-published on CD-ROM without her permission -- and various Western governments
attempts at censorship particularly in the matter of pornography, which is apparently
thought by non-users to be rife, and available at the click of a button.
BOYARS: Its the people who like to control things who do
this, you know. It really doesnt harm you very much. We saw a film in New York
called Chasing Amy. It will never come to England; we have film censorship, and
this film is very explicitly gay, sexually. Every film has to be licensed, you see, before
it can be shown. It was true in the theater, until the 1960s: you
couldnt bring a play to the stage without the approval of the Lord Chamberlain. It
took years to abolish that part of the law; but we still have film censorship.
McNAMARA: What do they censor for?
BOYARS: Sex and violence, you know: sex and violence. Actually,
they are less interested in sex these days. I dont know about the United States: is
there censorship there?
McNAMARA: People dont like to use that word. There is a
BOYARS: Of course they dont like to use it, because
its an explosive word: but thats what it is!
McNAMARA: Actually, there is a phrase edging its way around the
book-publishing world: market censorship, meaning that publishing decisions
arent editorially determined. Indeed, very good books are often turned down, because
editors are basing decisions to publish on estimated markets.
BOYARS: Im a censor, in a way; were all censors: we
do not publish certain books. We dont necessarily not publish them because
they are too explicit sexually, although we have been known to do that. In the LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN case, there were a number of English publishers who
kept their distance. One very kind publisher actually tried to collect money for us --
its very, very expensive to defend yourself, you know -- and some very distinguished
publishers nearly refused. We were asked by some publishers to withdraw the book, or not
But, an interesting thing happened. The solicitor Lord Goodman, whose firm defended us
in the first two trials, was Chairman of the Arts Council. He convened over 100
people and proposed a scheme whereby there would be pre-publication censorship, because he
felt that what happened to us should not happen to other people. I mean, his motivation
was perfectly good; and all the people in the arts were there: the filmmakers, the theater
people, the publishers, the writers: it was really a most distinguished gathering of
people in the arts. And they talked -- he talked -- for about an hour and a half: about
forming a committee of the arts, to censor beforehand, so there wouldnt be such a
Eventually I stood up and said: It doesnt matter how benign the censorship
body is, it is still censorship, and that is something we dont want. Goodman
was a rather big, bulky, important man, and he collapsed. He was so angry with me he
didnt speak to me for two years. Because, suddenly, everybody thought about it and
said, Well, this is in fact pre-publication censorship. You see, they
had just got rid of theater censorship.
And as a result of my intervention a committee was formed at the Arts Council. He was
so angry about the whole thing that he put the partner who had defended us in charge of
this committee; he had been our solicitor. He was a wonderful man: Ive never admired
anyone quite as much as him. And, after two years of discussion, he went against the
committee. And so Goodman did not prevail; but he almost did. Because everybody could see
that the publishers were all in favor of it: they didnt want to have the enormous
expense of defending a book, and they all thought this pre-publication review
would protect them. But of course, it would have done exactly the opposite. And it was
very easy to change the feeling of the meeting. I said: All censorship is bad, even
benign censorship. Im very much against it, in any form.
McNAMARA: Youve said you were an avant-garde publisher.
BOYARS: Ive said, I used to be an avant-garde
publisher; now, Im old-fashioned in my ways, because publishing has changed.
McNAMARA: You also said, Language develops because of
literature, it doesnt develop because of television. I said that was arguable;
and you said: Yes, thats why I said it: because it can be argued. You
were speaking of what is called obscenity and forbidden subjects, taboos, and about
bringing -- or not bringing -- them into art.
BOYARS: The artist is doing it.
McNAMARA: The artist is doing it. Through art people can be made
aware of these subjects, in a mental context: the artist makes them available through our
higher facilities. Am I overstating the case?
BOYARS: No, not at all. I think art has a way of changing
something that could be very vulgar, into something that is cerebral.
McNAMARA: What if this makes a false change. Is that possible?
BOYARS: Thats bad art. If there is no artistic integrity, I
dont think its going to work, I dont think its going to make
anyone aware of anything except what is disgusting: and thats bad art.
McNAMARA: You published avant-garde writers, for serious readers.
I myself dont think there is an avant-garde anymore.
BOYARS: I agree with you.
McNAMARA: And so, if erotica and obscenity were a way of opening
the mind to what it refused to know, as Miller and Selby did; then, that seems not still
to be true. So, what do you think, now, would be our taboo subjects?
BOYARS: War. Suicide. Incest. Racism, in two ways: whats
happening with black people; the way the Chinese are spoken of, now that they are
considered a rival for markets.
Genocide. There are things going on in the world that are like the Holocaust;
extraordinary cruelty is still going on. The Holocaust literature certainly has shown us
what we must know. But one of the terrible things is that people who are exposed to
genocide now are denied. The plight of the Jews is something that has been told time and
time again, and I still find it shocking. But, if people were really that shocked I
dont think it could go on, yet it does.
Now, very often we are told about these things in a newspaper article, and then we seem
to forget. Television is too fleeting, as a matter of fact. You see, the goalposts have
been changed. Its very difficult to shock people these days, except with actual
life. Life is very, very shocking now. I am often very indignant, and that has to work
itself out, somehow. Language should shock.
McNAMARA: What makes a book commercial?
BOYARS: Ah. Ho. I dont know.
McNAMARA: How do you gauge a market?
BOYARS: I dont know how to do it -- its no good, I
know, but I cant gauge a market. There are publishers, I know, who look at a book
and weigh it. We have published quite a few books that sold well -- ONE
FLEW OVER THE CUCKOOS NEST, which is my all-time best seller, was out of
print. I thought it should be in print. I certainly didnt know the whole world was
waiting for somebody to attack the structure of asylums; but there it was.
The truth is, I dont know any other way. I can read a manuscript and love it, but
I cannot tell if it will sell. How do they know; how do they do it? Id like to know.
There were things I thought should be in print, forbidden subjects. LAST
EXIT TO BROOKLYN was one of those books. I must have published it because I wanted
to shock the world. I was shocked.
McNAMARA: What was your shock?
BOYARS: Well, my knowledge of the Red Hook district of Brooklyn
was nil. My knowledge of homosexuals was nil. This is simply not something I know about.
It was my instinct, somehow, that this should appear, and that it was all very authentic.
I never questioned the veracity of that book. And you know, it was very powerful.
McNAMARA: There is a cohesiveness and an intelligence to your
list: it seems to me the literature of a refined or observant taste.
BOYARS: Well, it has quality. That is always hard. These are
things I like; fortunately, enough readers agree with me. Of course, there have been many
McNAMARA: Esthetic failures?
BOYARS: No: Im not sorry Ive published any books that
are on the list. Ive published books I thought would sell well, and they
didnt: I still find them interesting. There has been some attempt by me to share
something that I like, and shape the culture.
One of my best authors is Ivan Illich (MEDICAL NEMESIS, etc). He
shares my ideas about authority and responsibility. What he says is not: You
shouldnt go to the doctor. What he says is: You are responsible for your
own health. He doesnt attack doctors, he attacks the medical establishment.
A lot of people minded that he wouldnt tell them how to live. They came to him
with problems; he said: You solve it. Thats all. I admire that, because
it was so easy, so easy, to have done the opposite, when he could have become president of
the world at the time, he was so popular. Extraordinarily modest man. Yet, Cuernavaca was
the most undemocratic place you can imagine. Hes very authoritarian. Hes very
severe, in many ways. But also, the people around him would of course take care of him,
We published his recent lectures a little while ago [IN THE MIRROR OF
THE PAST: Lectures and Addresses 1978-1990]. Hes putting together another
volume, and I said, Yes, Ill publish it. Hes such a beautiful man.
And it was a terrific adventure, publishing him in an active way. But it was also very
McNAMARA: What is hard work, to a publisher?
BOYARS: In the first place, you are getting involved with money
every minute of the day. I find that such hard work. You have to be careful, but terribly
precise, and there must be no mistakes. And so, we proofread, and proofread.
You have to try and sell the books. That is more work. And I have to do the money
again. Publishing really exists, you know, as a business, and the money aspect I find
wearying. Ive always found it hard; most people do. You see, if you work for a large
company you dont have to earn the money first to pay expenses, all you have to do is
have a bloc of money to draw upon in advance. Its much harder work to own your own
McNAMARA: Do you work with agents?
BOYARS: I understand the agents, and the authors going to
them. I work quite happily with agents, because I see them, I have lunch with them, and
the whole thing is kind of domesticated. They think Im slightly eccentric,
publishing books no one else wants; but they know my word is good.
McNAMARA: How are contracts important? Did you ever do anything
on a handshake?
BOYARS: I dont believe people have good enough memories for
that. Its got to be done properly. Though my office doesnt look tidy, I can
find anything in it. I keep careful records. I know exactly what Im doing at any
But I have superb books coming in. I hope it doesnt matter that the times are
I used to have commissioned salesmen. That wasnt working properly; and then a
firm of representatives, who were part of a huge distribution contract, offered
themselves. I called all my reps and I said: Look, this offer sounds good, and
they released me to this new contract. But theyre not selling, either. I asked why,
and never got an answer, after 15 tries. One question, asked 15 times. This is what it means to work with a big firm.
McNAMARA: How long do you keep books in print?
BOYARS: Its very rare that we dont reprint a book. I
have an awful lot of books with very small printings; but we reprint. We re-jacket books,
and we paperback them. Its very rare that I dont re-do a book. Its
actually a list that should go on.
McNAMARA: Ive been told that other publishers admire your
books and try to get the authors from you. Is that true?
BOYARS: Who told you? Yes, its true. Its mostly the
agents who do that, but sometimes the editors, as well. I had published Tim OBrien:
two books, IF I DIE IN A COMBAT ZONE and NORTHERN
LIGHTS. His publisher was Sam [Seymour] Lawrence. Sam sent GOING
AFTER CACCIATO to me. I wanted to publish it and I made an offer. Tim called me and
said: Marion, please, what did you offer? Three thousand pounds.
Not a fortune, by todays lights. Is that all right? I said. I
swear it will be all right, he said; I dont want to leave you, but Sam
told me he had accepted an offer from someone else.
I called Sam and asked what was going on. What makes you think that?
Tim called me. Tim called you? You have no business talking with
him! I said: Hey, hold it. You introduced us. I worked with him on NORTHERN LIGHTS. I bought the first book and the second book: why
shouldnt we have become friends? Why shouldnt he have talked to me? He
put the phone down, and I put the phone down.
What Sam Lawrence had done was call Tom Maschler, who was at Jonathan Cape, and said:
Marion has offered £3,000. Tom had a lot of money. He
said, Triple it.
Sam Lawrence finally said to me, Will you forgive and forget? I said,
Forgive, willingly; but forgetting is impossible.
Very few authors come back after an event like that. Michael Ondaatje -- well,
its my fault it happened. He sent me a manuscript of RUNNING IN THE
FAMILY. I read it and thought it was wonderful, though a little precious. So I
wrote him a letter, and I said: I think you should, etc. ... wonderful, etc. ... be
sure to send me a revised copy. The agent was very angry, because I criticized.
Actually, it didnt harm my relationship with Michael very much. Hes a very
nice person, hes got a major publisher now, and he won the Booker.
So, these things do happen. Theyre bound to happen. I dont like them much.
McNAMARA: How many new books do you publish each year?
BOYARS: About 20. The back list is very
McNAMARA: Is there a typical press run?
BOYARS: Well, I dont do many books under 2,000
copies, and we dont do many over 5,000. But COMPUTER
ONE, [by Warwick Collins], for instance: well probably print 10,000.
Everybodys very impressed with it. And I under-print, rather than overprint,
unfortunately. So that means that I reprint, and then all the books come back again. The
publishing industry is the only one that accepts full returns. Sheer madness!
Buying Rights. Selling Books.
McNAMARA: Id be interested in your opinion about publishing
rights on the internet, generally and specifically. Lets say a book is published in
more than one English-speaking country, and I want to reprint something from it, an essay
perhaps. Ive got the authors agreement; he understands that no money is
involved; now I need the publishers permission. I think it good to get permission
from the other English-language publishers, as well as from the US, because our readership
is international; especially if the author involved is not American. This is assuming that
the publishers have electronic rights. What do you think about this sort of thing?
BOYARS: Well, I think this whole thing has not been resolved. And
when an exchange of money is involved -- not in your case, but in mine, for example
[reference to a pending dispute] with CD-ROM reprints -- I maintain
that the law has not been tested. I maintain that its like xeroxing, quoting, etc. I
get hundreds of letters about this sort of thing. They say, We would like to reprint
such-and-such an essay from one of your books. We will not distribute in England,
therefore we want only North American rights. I would say, Thats
fine, and I would quote a fee; and they pay it, and distribute in North America. On
the other hand, they may plan to distribute world-wide in English. In that case, I say,
Yes, you have permission for world use, and the permission costs more money than in
England only. Or they say, We only want to distribute this in England:
there is an alternate fee for that. Or they say, The main thrust is in America, but
we want to sell a few copies in England. Fine, I say, in that case
I will make it cheaper for you than I would if it were originating in England. And
in my opinion, that is how it should work; but it hasnt been tested. In other words,
there is no case law. There was no case law with xeroxing until Kinkos fell into a
trap. At NYU, professors asked for xeroxed copies of published materials for the students
in their courses. Kinkos xeroxed material without permission and had a huge court
case because of it. They are very cautious now.
We make quite a lot of money, actually, from xeroxing. The author gets half, we get the
other half. In England, they have two organizations for xeroxing: one looks after the
publishers, the other looks after the authors. When I first started, I would divide it and
give the author half. The authors just put it in their pocket, until I found out that
actually they had already got their half. So, next time, I only wrote a statement, no
words were exchanged.
But I think one should ask for the rights. Now, the other bone of contention is that
contracts written before, say, 1990, do not specifically say
electronic rights. And some agents maintain that, because it doesnt say
so, you dont have the rights. But I say, It is exactly the same as reproduction and
therefore I am entitled to these rights. Because the future, in my opinion, is that books
will go on, but in much smaller quantities. There will be smaller print runs, and more CD-ROMs. Or, it will be as you are doing, publishing on the internet.
McNAMARA: What rights does a publisher expect and feel entitled
BOYARS: We call them volume rights, which means
text rights. You have the right to publish the text in any form. You can then
publish in hardcover, in paperback, you can authorize excerpts of that text. This is a
contentious point. Some people take the phrase literally, to mean you have the right to
publish the text as a book. But publish means to make public. The
writer creates the text; the publisher makes it public. I hold that that text is what the
publisher should make public, by whatever means are available to him. The
bookseller-publisher once only bought book-rights. But volume rights means, I
contend, that the publisher should have the right to share in the proceeds of that text
reproduced in its unadulterated form: as a book, or a xeroxed copy, on the internet, or
when libraries scan the book. I think that if the book is read on-line, or is downloaded,
somebody should pay for it.
Now, film rights are not an automatic extension of volume rights. Changing the
text is not an extended right. If a novel is made into a play or a film, that is the
authors right: the text belongs to him; he is in charge of what can be done to alter
it. When I buy English rights, in most cases I dont have film rights. In the case of
this chap [Mark Fyfe, ASHER], I do even have film rights. And we
sold an option on it to a producer: with, of course, the authors approval.
I bought this on the strength of, oh, 50 pages, and then he wrote
it under my guidance. I didnt write it, you know: but we discussed it day in
and day out. This should stay in, and this should go out. Why not make this a bit
more clear, etc. Its a complex process. I wanted clarity; my editorial
criterion is clarity. If you want to say something, say it: dont expect the reader
to put it in himself. A lot of new authors think the reader should sit down and work it
out, and then read it again, and then read it again. Those days are over.
McNAMARA: Joyce thought that. Faulkner thought that.
BOYARS: Well, a lot of writers think that. But people wont:
if its not clear, they dont read it.
McNAMARA: What is the job of the publisher, if he buys volume
BOYARS: You have to try to sell the book! I mean, you have to
exploit the book; you have to do something for it. You dont get response to it for
nothing. That stack next to you is 50 advance copies of the futurist
novel COMPUTER ONE [by Warwick Collins]. We have great hopes for the
book, were going to pepper the world with publicity. Ive already offered it to
mass-market paperback publishers, and Ive taken it to places like the New York
Times Book Review. They need to have the book about five months before publication.
The pub. date is November. Its ready to go to press; its just that its
only been announced, the catalog isnt printed yet, and its not in our current
I need a lot of lead time, and Im going to do a lot of things with it to interest
people in it, interest them in the author. I work very much with the author: he has ideas,
I have ideas. One is really trying to make the book known, and so you use everything
youve ever done on the book, if you have great confidence in it, which I do.
(End of Part 2.)
Part 1 /
Part 3 / Endnotes