Take a photo of a barcode or cover
I like what John Safran does and his approach is entertaining and thoughtful. At times the themes explored (racism, violence, extreme conservatism etc.) in the book wore me down but Safran delivers the story in a way that balances the shocking with the sad and the ironic with the tragic. I look forward to reading his next true crime offering.
15/11 - I've never watched any of John Safran's shows because I don't like to see journalists confronting and antagonising dangerous people, like KKK grand dragons (why on earth are they 'dragons'?). It's not like they're going to change their minds, and sometimes it doesn't seem too far-fetched to worry about the offending journalist's (and possibly their camera man) body being found hanging from a tree a week later.
If I was watching this, rather than reading it, I would be yelling at the tv demanding to know what the hell Safran was thinking getting in the face of and asking KKK big shots awkward (and also reasonably obvious) questions about who can and cannot join the KKK. It's just not a good idea (IMHO) if you value your health and wellbeing. Thankfully, I'm not watching it so I'm finding it much less stressful following on with Safran's 'adventures' in white supremacist country than I thought I would.
I really don't mean any offense to Mississippians, but your state sounds (from this book and movies like A Time to Kill, The Chamber, and Mississippi Burning) kind of scary crazy. I don't know how you live there, no matter what colour your skin is. I don't think I could stand the racism and how ingrained in the culture it is. Some of Safran's experiences sound like he stole them straight out of the 60s (or a movie), but what's most disturbing to me (a Melburnian who has seen very little racism in her lifetime) is that this book was written only last year. These things are still happening. The n word is still used with impunity, the KKK is still active and recruiting (even Safran if he hadn't had a Jewish mother), people believe that it was better before desegregation (even African Americans), African Americans still have to worry about being seen with a Caucasian person (especially in a dating/romantic situation) in case the Caucasian's family takes offense and decides to do something about it. I hate that this is still the reality for a whole state-full (or more, I don't know what Georgia and the other 'Southern' states are like) of people and it makes me angry to think about it too much.
I'm just going to try to concentrate on the 'true crime' aspect of the story, which doesn't actually seem to be related to race, and not think too much about the racism. The crime itself certainly is worth contemplating, it's so weird. Richard Barrett is like two different personalities in the one body, I'm not surprised some of his acquaintances thought he was an FBI plant. Some people saw the white supremacist fanatic (there's no gay people in the KKK), some saw a man who was a bit too touchy feely with teenage boys (and even one of Safran's producers). The accused murderer came up with numerous different stories to explain what happened and why he murdered Barrett, but because he kept changing his story I don't feel that we have heard the true story. I will be very interested to read whatever of the court proceedings Safran decides to include in the book, as I can't imagine what his defence team is going to say or what the defendant's final explanation will be. To be continued...
16/11 - This has got to be the weirdest murder (plead down to manslaughter) non-trial of the 21st century. None of it makes any sense, no one's behaviour makes any sense, the whole case is very nonsensical. Because McGee plead guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter, as well as the original charges of arson and burglary, there was no trial and therefore no argument over McGee's sentence - the prosecutor recommended 65 years, so the judge gave him 65 years. No trial means no witnesses taking the stand to explain the defendant's, or the victim's, actions, no cross examining of these witnesses by the prosecutor or McGee's lawyer in order to get to the truth. So Safran decided to take it upon himself to attempt to find the truth by questioning all the witnesses who were meant to take the stand during the trial. What he's uncovered (so far, not quite finished yet) is enlightening and confusing at the same time.
I'm not particularly impressed with the investigative skills of the two detectives assigned to the case. Within seconds of seeing Barrett's partially burnt body both men had decided that there were 'homosexual' motives behind the murder. All because Barrett had been stabbed numerous times around the chest and neck (enough so that he was nearly decapitated), in what the detectives considered 'homosexual overkill'. They (these homosexual murderers who the detectives have much experience with) get into a passionate rage (according to the officers) and go far beyond what is needed to kill their victim. Barrett had been stabbed 16 times, that was therefore, clearly, 'homosexual' overkill. They never gave any other motive for the overkill any consideration. At one point on page 192 Safran asks
"What does that mean? 'A homosexual murder?' Why would that be different from a non-homosexual murder?"
"I can't explain it," Tim (one of the investigating detectives) says. "I don't have an answer for that."
So he (Tim) doesn't know how a homosexual murder is different from a non-homosexual murder, but he still knows one when he sees it. That logic gives me a real sense of security in the powers of his investigating skills. Confusion reigns over the whole investigation. On page 193 and 194 Safran tries to understand why the victim had been dragged through the house (evidence of this shown by drag marks made in Barrett's blood)
'"Why would Vincent want to drag him?" I ask. "Maybe closer to the fire?"
"Vincent moved him from the kitchen to the bedroom," Wayne says.
"And why do you think he did that?"
"I don't know."
If Vincent did drag Richard to the bedroom, he must have later dragged him back to the kitchen because that's where everyone's telling me - Wayne and Tim included - the body was found. Is it possible they're confusing the bedroom and the kitchen because that might be what happened in a homosexual murder?'
No one seems to be able to keep the facts of the case straight. On page 208 Safran describes his discussion with Adele Lewis, the forensic pathologist who performed Barrett's autopsy.
'"Sorry to be tacky," I say, "but there were suggestions at the start it was a sex crime and so did you do things like any tests on whether he'd had sex, or whether there was semen on him, or anything like that?"
"No, I wasn't made aware of that until after the autopsy had been completed and the body had been cleaned."
She doesn't sound happy about this.'
And then further down the page she continues with
'"Had they implied that it had been a sex crime or told me that it was, I would've asked them if they wanted me to do what's called a thorough rape kit, which is where we take cotton swabs and swab the mouth, the anus, and we also do fingernail clippings. Those can be examined for DNA and trace evidence."
Here's a weird thing. Investigator Wayne Humphrey took me through the autopsy process. He said he was in the room when they cut open Richard. And he said there was a 'sex test'. This is what Wayne told me he said to the autopsy people:
"I said, I'm sorry I have to get you to do this, when they finished, but could you please do a visual look at his rectum to see if there's any foreign objects? Then they spread him and then made an incision - with, like, hedgers you use to prune - to cut up his anus so she could really get inside. She had a look and couldn't see anything."
Could one of them be misremembering, or confusing Richard with another corpse? Would you be more likely to remember accurately if you were the one using the hedgers or the one watching? Which one is more likely to get carried away with the story?'
I think whoever advised McGee to take a plea instead of going to trial made a huge mistake. From what I'm reading it seems to me there would be about a dozen different opportunities for an appeal to be granted.
I did notice a small editing error on page 97, where Safran mixes up Tina McGee's (Vincent's mother) name with Vallena Greer's (founder of the Vincent McGee defence fund). Safran is in McGee's house talking to his mother about what Vincent said happened the night he killed Barrett.
'"So after that," Vallena says, "I don't really know. But that's what my son told me, that he pulled it on him."'
Obviously, Safran means Tina when he writes Vallena, because it's Tina's son who is accused of the murder, Tina's house that he's sitting in, and Tina herself who he was talking to. Ooopsy daisy. To be continued...
SPOILER AHEAD
18/11 - Oh dear, he did it again. On page 333 Safran mixes Vicky McGee (Vincent's aunt) up with Tina McGee (Vincent's mother). One minute Trip Bayles (one of the investigators) is talking to Vicky, then suddenly she's Tina, then back to Vicky again, exactly the same as when he confused Tina with Vallena.
'"He was a white supreme-ist."
Vicky leans in. "I don't know what that means," she says seriously.
"That means he didn't like black people very much."
"Well, I like everyone."
"Me too," says Trip.
"They one of those people that perform with the skinheads," Trip says. "You ever heard of that?"
"No."
"They're really extreme racist white people."
"Oh, well," says Tina, "that's his business. Long as he doesn't mess with me, I love him."
After finishing this yesterday morning I found both Vincent and Safran on Facebook and followed Safran (Vincent was of no interest to me). In one of his posts from earlier this month he discusses the fact that the book is being released in America under a different title (I never understand the motives behind this practice), with an extra 'epilogue' that wasn't included in the Australian edition. SPOILER DEAD AHEAD, LOOK AWAY NOW IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE FINAL OUTCOME FOR THREE OF THE MAIN 'CHARACTERS' IN THIS STORY.
In this new epilogue he tells the reader the final fate of Vincent, Chokwe, and Precious. Chokwe ran for, and was elected, as mayor. Then within a few months (in April 2014) he's dead from a heart attack. Precious and his 10-year-old son were involved in a four-wheeler accident where he lost control, drove up an embankment, and flipped the vehicle. Precious died at the scene, his son sustained numerous broken bones, but will recover fully. Vincent was stabbed in the eye by a fellow prisoner who had somehow gotten hold of a knife. The last Safran had heard was that Vincent was in the prison hospital hooked up to a ventilator and the stabbed eye had been removed. No word on his future prognosis. A crazy end to a crazy series of events.
If I was watching this, rather than reading it, I would be yelling at the tv demanding to know what the hell Safran was thinking getting in the face of and asking KKK big shots awkward (and also reasonably obvious) questions about who can and cannot join the KKK. It's just not a good idea (IMHO) if you value your health and wellbeing. Thankfully, I'm not watching it so I'm finding it much less stressful following on with Safran's 'adventures' in white supremacist country than I thought I would.
I really don't mean any offense to Mississippians, but your state sounds (from this book and movies like A Time to Kill, The Chamber, and Mississippi Burning) kind of scary crazy. I don't know how you live there, no matter what colour your skin is. I don't think I could stand the racism and how ingrained in the culture it is. Some of Safran's experiences sound like he stole them straight out of the 60s (or a movie), but what's most disturbing to me (a Melburnian who has seen very little racism in her lifetime) is that this book was written only last year. These things are still happening. The n word is still used with impunity, the KKK is still active and recruiting (even Safran if he hadn't had a Jewish mother), people believe that it was better before desegregation (even African Americans), African Americans still have to worry about being seen with a Caucasian person (especially in a dating/romantic situation) in case the Caucasian's family takes offense and decides to do something about it. I hate that this is still the reality for a whole state-full (or more, I don't know what Georgia and the other 'Southern' states are like) of people and it makes me angry to think about it too much.
I'm just going to try to concentrate on the 'true crime' aspect of the story, which doesn't actually seem to be related to race, and not think too much about the racism. The crime itself certainly is worth contemplating, it's so weird. Richard Barrett is like two different personalities in the one body, I'm not surprised some of his acquaintances thought he was an FBI plant. Some people saw the white supremacist fanatic (there's no gay people in the KKK), some saw a man who was a bit too touchy feely with teenage boys (and even one of Safran's producers). The accused murderer came up with numerous different stories to explain what happened and why he murdered Barrett, but because he kept changing his story I don't feel that we have heard the true story. I will be very interested to read whatever of the court proceedings Safran decides to include in the book, as I can't imagine what his defence team is going to say or what the defendant's final explanation will be. To be continued...
16/11 - This has got to be the weirdest murder (plead down to manslaughter) non-trial of the 21st century. None of it makes any sense, no one's behaviour makes any sense, the whole case is very nonsensical. Because McGee plead guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter, as well as the original charges of arson and burglary, there was no trial and therefore no argument over McGee's sentence - the prosecutor recommended 65 years, so the judge gave him 65 years. No trial means no witnesses taking the stand to explain the defendant's, or the victim's, actions, no cross examining of these witnesses by the prosecutor or McGee's lawyer in order to get to the truth. So Safran decided to take it upon himself to attempt to find the truth by questioning all the witnesses who were meant to take the stand during the trial. What he's uncovered (so far, not quite finished yet) is enlightening and confusing at the same time.
I'm not particularly impressed with the investigative skills of the two detectives assigned to the case. Within seconds of seeing Barrett's partially burnt body both men had decided that there were 'homosexual' motives behind the murder. All because Barrett had been stabbed numerous times around the chest and neck (enough so that he was nearly decapitated), in what the detectives considered 'homosexual overkill'. They (these homosexual murderers who the detectives have much experience with) get into a passionate rage (according to the officers) and go far beyond what is needed to kill their victim. Barrett had been stabbed 16 times, that was therefore, clearly, 'homosexual' overkill. They never gave any other motive for the overkill any consideration. At one point on page 192 Safran asks
"What does that mean? 'A homosexual murder?' Why would that be different from a non-homosexual murder?"
"I can't explain it," Tim (one of the investigating detectives) says. "I don't have an answer for that."
So he (Tim) doesn't know how a homosexual murder is different from a non-homosexual murder, but he still knows one when he sees it. That logic gives me a real sense of security in the powers of his investigating skills. Confusion reigns over the whole investigation. On page 193 and 194 Safran tries to understand why the victim had been dragged through the house (evidence of this shown by drag marks made in Barrett's blood)
'"Why would Vincent want to drag him?" I ask. "Maybe closer to the fire?"
"Vincent moved him from the kitchen to the bedroom," Wayne says.
"And why do you think he did that?"
"I don't know."
If Vincent did drag Richard to the bedroom, he must have later dragged him back to the kitchen because that's where everyone's telling me - Wayne and Tim included - the body was found. Is it possible they're confusing the bedroom and the kitchen because that might be what happened in a homosexual murder?'
No one seems to be able to keep the facts of the case straight. On page 208 Safran describes his discussion with Adele Lewis, the forensic pathologist who performed Barrett's autopsy.
'"Sorry to be tacky," I say, "but there were suggestions at the start it was a sex crime and so did you do things like any tests on whether he'd had sex, or whether there was semen on him, or anything like that?"
"No, I wasn't made aware of that until after the autopsy had been completed and the body had been cleaned."
She doesn't sound happy about this.'
And then further down the page she continues with
'"Had they implied that it had been a sex crime or told me that it was, I would've asked them if they wanted me to do what's called a thorough rape kit, which is where we take cotton swabs and swab the mouth, the anus, and we also do fingernail clippings. Those can be examined for DNA and trace evidence."
Here's a weird thing. Investigator Wayne Humphrey took me through the autopsy process. He said he was in the room when they cut open Richard. And he said there was a 'sex test'. This is what Wayne told me he said to the autopsy people:
"I said, I'm sorry I have to get you to do this, when they finished, but could you please do a visual look at his rectum to see if there's any foreign objects? Then they spread him and then made an incision - with, like, hedgers you use to prune - to cut up his anus so she could really get inside. She had a look and couldn't see anything."
Could one of them be misremembering, or confusing Richard with another corpse? Would you be more likely to remember accurately if you were the one using the hedgers or the one watching? Which one is more likely to get carried away with the story?'
I think whoever advised McGee to take a plea instead of going to trial made a huge mistake. From what I'm reading it seems to me there would be about a dozen different opportunities for an appeal to be granted.
I did notice a small editing error on page 97, where Safran mixes up Tina McGee's (Vincent's mother) name with Vallena Greer's (founder of the Vincent McGee defence fund). Safran is in McGee's house talking to his mother about what Vincent said happened the night he killed Barrett.
'"So after that," Vallena says, "I don't really know. But that's what my son told me, that he pulled it on him."'
Obviously, Safran means Tina when he writes Vallena, because it's Tina's son who is accused of the murder, Tina's house that he's sitting in, and Tina herself who he was talking to. Ooopsy daisy. To be continued...
SPOILER AHEAD
18/11 - Oh dear, he did it again. On page 333 Safran mixes Vicky McGee (Vincent's aunt) up with Tina McGee (Vincent's mother). One minute Trip Bayles (one of the investigators) is talking to Vicky, then suddenly she's Tina, then back to Vicky again, exactly the same as when he confused Tina with Vallena.
'"He was a white supreme-ist."
Vicky leans in. "I don't know what that means," she says seriously.
"That means he didn't like black people very much."
"Well, I like everyone."
"Me too," says Trip.
"They one of those people that perform with the skinheads," Trip says. "You ever heard of that?"
"No."
"They're really extreme racist white people."
"Oh, well," says Tina, "that's his business. Long as he doesn't mess with me, I love him."
After finishing this yesterday morning I found both Vincent and Safran on Facebook and followed Safran (Vincent was of no interest to me). In one of his posts from earlier this month he discusses the fact that the book is being released in America under a different title (I never understand the motives behind this practice), with an extra 'epilogue' that wasn't included in the Australian edition. SPOILER DEAD AHEAD, LOOK AWAY NOW IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE FINAL OUTCOME FOR THREE OF THE MAIN 'CHARACTERS' IN THIS STORY.
In this new epilogue he tells the reader the final fate of Vincent, Chokwe, and Precious. Chokwe ran for, and was elected, as mayor. Then within a few months (in April 2014) he's dead from a heart attack. Precious and his 10-year-old son were involved in a four-wheeler accident where he lost control, drove up an embankment, and flipped the vehicle. Precious died at the scene, his son sustained numerous broken bones, but will recover fully. Vincent was stabbed in the eye by a fellow prisoner who had somehow gotten hold of a knife. The last Safran had heard was that Vincent was in the prison hospital hooked up to a ventilator and the stabbed eye had been removed. No word on his future prognosis. A crazy end to a crazy series of events.
I am not a huge fan of non-fiction, but love true crime. I had watched John Safrans TV series in the past and heard him on the radio so knew what to expect.
I really loved the style of this book. It was uncomfortable reading at points- you could really taste the
heat in Mississippi, and the lack of race relations.
And the characters- how they came to life!
For anyone who loves true crime I would recommend this book- it is just as much about the story of Johns travels and feelings about what he finds out about the murder and the people of Mississippi than the actual crime.
I really loved the style of this book. It was uncomfortable reading at points- you could really taste the
heat in Mississippi, and the lack of race relations.
And the characters- how they came to life!
For anyone who loves true crime I would recommend this book- it is just as much about the story of Johns travels and feelings about what he finds out about the murder and the people of Mississippi than the actual crime.
One of the great things about Safran is his brutal honesty about his own emotions and interests when investigating. His television documentaries display a fearlessness to be admired but it's this display of diving head first into new territory that puts him in a world class category.
This book is less true crime, a genre drowning in sensationalism, and more an anthropological musing on the sensation of murder, racism, poverty and exploitation.
It's a pleasure to read: the kind of book that made me wish I was on holidays so I could just get back to it.
This book is less true crime, a genre drowning in sensationalism, and more an anthropological musing on the sensation of murder, racism, poverty and exploitation.
It's a pleasure to read: the kind of book that made me wish I was on holidays so I could just get back to it.
dark
mysterious
fast-paced
I think the fact that I finished 5 other books in the time since I started this one speaks volumes. There is potential for an interesting, well written novel based on the events that motivated Safran to write this. However, this is not that book. Safran is a television comedian. He is not a writer. It was derivative, unfocused, mean spirited, and boring. Glad to be done with it.
This was a decent quick non-fiction read. It tells the story of a white Jewish Australian documentarian who interviewed and filmed a white supremacist for a film on race. A year later, the white supremacist is found murdered in his home and a young black man is charged with the crime. The author returns to Mississippi with the thought of writing a true crime novel. At first glance it looks like there was a racial motive, things become more complicated as the investigation continues. The book, like the author's investigation, seems a bit scattered. Still, an interesting story. 3 stars
a bizarre, at-times hilarious, and rather dismal survey of the south from my favorite jewish australian.
I really enjoyed this book. I think it is more a John Safran adventure than a true crime story, which is fine for me because I'm a long time fan of Safran's shenanigans but it may take true crime afficionados by surprise. There are lots of twists and turns, but no real answers because real life can never be as neat as fiction, of course.
One of the reasons I've always loved Safran's TV work is his utter fearlessness and he shows it again here, that willingness to go the extra mile to get the story. His description at the end of the book of the range of politicians speaking at a white supremacist rally (trust me, not who you'd think) perfectly encapsulates the spirit of the book and the multi-layered contradictions of even the most seemingly simple situation.
It's a fast-paced, thought-provoking, interesting read. Highly recommended.
One of the reasons I've always loved Safran's TV work is his utter fearlessness and he shows it again here, that willingness to go the extra mile to get the story. His description at the end of the book of the range of politicians speaking at a white supremacist rally (trust me, not who you'd think) perfectly encapsulates the spirit of the book and the multi-layered contradictions of even the most seemingly simple situation.
It's a fast-paced, thought-provoking, interesting read. Highly recommended.
Most Australians have probably heard of John Safran. His television shows tend to attract controversy and letters to the editor – me, I find them insightful and willing to tackle the big issues, such as race and religion. So how does John Safran on the page compare to him on the screen?
Very, very well. In fact, I’d go so far to say that I enjoyed his writing more than the television programmes (except for the lack of Father Bob). Safran picks a big topic for his first book – true crime. To make things even more complex, a white supremacist John interviewed for Race Relations has now been found murdered. The murderer’s identity isn’t in doubt – but what makes the crime more curious is that it was a black man. What was the motive? Was it race?
John travels to Mississippi to find out more. He tells his story of tracking down and meeting the victim’s associates (Richard didn’t really have friends) and family. Things get even more odd when Richard’s will is revealed – how are the beneficiaries linked to Richard and why is the government of Iran on there? John’s investigations lead him to think that this wasn’t a race-motivated murder – was it related to homosexuality? Was it just an argument? John tracks down the murderer’s family and even befriends Vincent in gaol. Armed with a plethora of Walmart Green Dot cards, he’ll find out why Vincent changed his story of what motivated him to murder.
While the book isn’t an expose of a murder or miscarriage of justice, it’s a fascinating insight into Mississippi, past and present. John details previous race-related crimes in the state and how they were dealt with (or swept under the carpet). His descriptions of the people, both black and white, poor and rich are fascinating. I found it really amusing when one of his interviewees asked about the Australian Aboriginal people and John just about jumped out of his skin, as most people seemed determinedly fixed on Mississippi prior to that. John also provides an insight into his own Jewish heritage in Melbourne.
As stories go, it’s not exactly a three act narrative because it’s real life. If you like your true crime stories to have a secret murder uncovered and the wrong person incarcerated before being saved by a heroic journalist, you won’t enjoy this. If you enjoy the unfolding of the details behind a crime with a marriage proposal by proxy, you’ll like this. The book is injected with humour (including the use of the word ‘murble’ for when John doesn’t understand a word said) and I enjoyed the way it was told, diary style as events unfold. The language is easy-going and engaging; the pace quick enough to maintain interest without becoming overwhelmed with names and motives.
Kudos must go to the cover designer(s) of this book. In real life, the cover almost looks three dimensional, with parts of it burned out. The text is a little dramatic, but it’s all part of a conversation he had with Richard’s murderer.
John’s included his contact details at the end of the book for leads for his next true crime story – I hope you find something John, because I’ll definitely read the book!
Thank you to Penguin Australia and The Reading Room for the copy of this book.
http://samstillreading.wordpress.com
Very, very well. In fact, I’d go so far to say that I enjoyed his writing more than the television programmes (except for the lack of Father Bob). Safran picks a big topic for his first book – true crime. To make things even more complex, a white supremacist John interviewed for Race Relations has now been found murdered. The murderer’s identity isn’t in doubt – but what makes the crime more curious is that it was a black man. What was the motive? Was it race?
John travels to Mississippi to find out more. He tells his story of tracking down and meeting the victim’s associates (Richard didn’t really have friends) and family. Things get even more odd when Richard’s will is revealed – how are the beneficiaries linked to Richard and why is the government of Iran on there? John’s investigations lead him to think that this wasn’t a race-motivated murder – was it related to homosexuality? Was it just an argument? John tracks down the murderer’s family and even befriends Vincent in gaol. Armed with a plethora of Walmart Green Dot cards, he’ll find out why Vincent changed his story of what motivated him to murder.
While the book isn’t an expose of a murder or miscarriage of justice, it’s a fascinating insight into Mississippi, past and present. John details previous race-related crimes in the state and how they were dealt with (or swept under the carpet). His descriptions of the people, both black and white, poor and rich are fascinating. I found it really amusing when one of his interviewees asked about the Australian Aboriginal people and John just about jumped out of his skin, as most people seemed determinedly fixed on Mississippi prior to that. John also provides an insight into his own Jewish heritage in Melbourne.
As stories go, it’s not exactly a three act narrative because it’s real life. If you like your true crime stories to have a secret murder uncovered and the wrong person incarcerated before being saved by a heroic journalist, you won’t enjoy this. If you enjoy the unfolding of the details behind a crime with a marriage proposal by proxy, you’ll like this. The book is injected with humour (including the use of the word ‘murble’ for when John doesn’t understand a word said) and I enjoyed the way it was told, diary style as events unfold. The language is easy-going and engaging; the pace quick enough to maintain interest without becoming overwhelmed with names and motives.
Kudos must go to the cover designer(s) of this book. In real life, the cover almost looks three dimensional, with parts of it burned out. The text is a little dramatic, but it’s all part of a conversation he had with Richard’s murderer.
John’s included his contact details at the end of the book for leads for his next true crime story – I hope you find something John, because I’ll definitely read the book!
Thank you to Penguin Australia and The Reading Room for the copy of this book.
http://samstillreading.wordpress.com