Karen and I are happy to post our most recent episode, in which we review Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld’s 1972 work, Apple to the Core: The Unmaking of the Beatles. Given the book’s importance and crucial trial material, the decision was made to split the analysis into two separate podcasts, as the latter part of the podcast tends to become quote/evidence heavy regarding trial testimony.
For those of you were hoping and expecting for a podcast review of The Authorized Biography, rest assured; that is in our queue; I am simply awaiting a physical copy via inter-library loan. Like everything else, inter-library loan is taking longer than normal these days.
Notes: the title of the Fred Goodman book I could not recall off the top of my head during the podcast is Allen Klein: The Man who Bailed out the Beatles, Made the Stones, and Transformed Rock and Roll. In addition to being a work with significant evidentiary omissions, and one solicited by Klein’s family following negative press in the aftermath of his death, it is worth noting that, the last time I checked (granted, more than a few months ago) Wikipedia’s article on Allen Klein is almost entirely based off of this one source.
Comments and questions are welcomed.
35 thoughts on “New Podcast Alert: Apple to the Core”
Thank you for this podcast! I have been hoping to get a hold of this book and these episodes just spurred me on to continue my search for a cheap copy or a library nearby that has it. I especially appreciated the part of the discussion where you talk about Nat Weiss’s contributions to the book. I have only ever seen quotes from the book either about the trial or from one or the other side of the 3/1 split; I had no idea there was a third perspective, Brian’s (by proxy), represented. I have seen a few people in Beatles discussions compare Brian and Allen’s approaches to the band, and some people argue that Klein was trying to copy Brian’s playbook in some ways; however, I tend to agree with your take that their approaches (not to mention their goals) generally speaking were very different from each other. Anyway, great episodes. Looking forward to whatever you cover next.
Thanks for the comment, Amy.
First off; I wish you the best of luck finding a copy. I eventually got one via Inter-library loan, but it is a frustrating issue hunting for a book you know you want to read but being unable to find a copy. There were a few books inter-library loan couldn’t secure for me, and that was always disappointing.
The Nat Weiss commentary was particularly interesting to me as well, because I didn’t recall it too heavily from my first read-through years ago. It was only as I was re-reading the book for the podcast that I realized the commentary I offered in my own book was somewhat incomplete: I portrayed “Apple to the Core” in “The Beatles and the Historians” as a reputational confrontation between Klein and the Eastman’s as to who was to blame for the band’s split, with both sides blaming the other. But Weiss’s commentary almost offers the reader a third option (albeit an impossible one) where, instead of simply choosing Klein or Eastman as the better choice for the band’s manager, you also have the option of choosing Brian. It is a book which emphasizes Brian’s positive contributions, and some of McCabe and Schoenfeld’s strongest conclusions come in their noting Brian’s strengths and criticizing Klein for being unable to acknowledge all the good Brian did. So this was also a reminder to me about how much it can help to re-read and/or review a book after stepping away from it for a while; it can offer valuable fresh perspective.
I’d be curious to know how some fans view Klein imitating Brian’s playbook in his managerial duties. Personality wise, they appear to have next to nothing in common, although John emphasizes his personal relationship and friendship with both — that he would never be able to be managed by someone he wasn’t friends with — and by all accounts, Klein was very good at starting personal relationships with his clients, but considerably less so at maintaining them.
Well, fingers crossed I get a hold of my copy of the Authorized Bio soon; hopefully this week.
Many, many thanks for this podcast. I managed to get my hands on Apple to the Core about six months ago, and although it is flawed, I enjoyed the read. I have only just started your podcast, but want to comment on one thing before I get any further. Re: did Peter McCabe try to interview Paul? Yes, he did.
In John Lennon: For The Record, McCabe says, “…We tried to talk to Paul, but Paul would only speak through his in-laws.”
McCabe also says that, “He [John] was hoping we could obtain an interview with Paul, suggesting among other things that we talk to Paul’s brother, Mike McGear, with whom John was obviously still good friends. ‘Mike’s an intelligent guy,’ he [John] said, ‘And he could give you some insights into Paul’s character.’ The McGear contact failed, however. Paul was talking only through the Eastmans.”
So it wasn’t Peter McCabe’s bias against Paul that prevented an interview, as was stated in the podcast. Even John urged McCabe to try for an interview (interesting in itself!) Paul refused to give an interview.
From my research and understanding of this, Paul was advised by the Eastmans to remain silent. Paul, having been raised to not ‘wash dirty linen in public’ thought he was doing the right thing by keeping a dignified silence. This, in my opinion, was a mistake. There are times in life where you’ve gotta stand up for yourself. That was Paul’s time to do it. He didn’t. Instead, he allowed Lee Eastman to speak for him. Another badly misjudged move. As a result of Paul’s silence and Eastman doing the talking, John was able to make the claims and assertions and judgements that he made without a counter, and the rest, as we know, is history. Although hopefully that history is now being corrected!
Anyway, love your website and podcasts very much! Looking forward to hearing the rest of the Apple to the Core podcasts!
Thanks so much for commenting, and for your looking up the quote/evidence that McCabe did try to interview Paul: as I mentioned later in the podcast, I have always assumed that McCabe did try to get an interview with Paul but was rejected, because this occurred during the period of Paull’s heavy press silence. I appreciate you finding the evidence to prove it, however. Karen’s theory that McCabe didn’t attempt to interview Paul was probably influenced by the reality that she could not get a hold of the book and had to rely entirely on my notes; she tried multiple options over at least a month but, short of breaking down and purchasing a too-expensive copy, could not find one. If you don’t mind my asking, where did you manage to find yours?
Paul’s press silence in this period is very interesting, given his experience in P.R. and obvious skill with it. The theory that the Eastman’s were advising Paul to avoid interviews/the press is an interesting one, and one I believe has a great deal of legitimacy.
Thanks also for the words of praise; we always appreciate comments and back-and-forth. We hope you enjoy the rest of the podcast, and feel free to continue commenting.
Thanks so much for this episode! I’ve never read Apple to the Core but would love to because, as you mentioned, despite it’s flaws I do think it serves as a good snapshot of the way the Beatles break-up was covered in its immediate aftermath and it’s home to so much primary material that is fascinating albeit not necessarily factually accurate or even-handed.
Just wanted to pick up on something discussed briefly on the show and in your comments above regarding Paul’s PR ability. For me, I’m not really surprised that Paul lost the PR battle in the immediate aftermath of the breakup despite the fact that he had been the nominal PR representative of the band while it was active. I get the impression that Paul’s brand of PR is more about making people comfortable, being facilitating and ensuring they get the content they’re after while trying to present his and the band’s best selves to the world, however what I think was largely absent from Paul’s handling of PR during the Beatle years was conflict, definitely nothing on the scale of the breakup aftermath. For the most part, Paul wasn’t really taking up combative roles publicly (most notable exceptions would be his promotion of his marijuana and LSD use, where I guess you can argue the latter ended badly). I think once it came time for Paul to publicly argue against John, George, Ringo, Yoko, Klein etc. he was just out of his depth and was self admittedly in a PR war he knew he could never win because he knew that conflict and arguing wasn’t his forte, that was John’s, so whether he engaged or not he would probably come off worse, although the absolute worst decision he could have made was staying silent for as long as he did. Time and time again with Paul we see him failing to engage directly with verbal attacks (notably from John and George) or when he does choose to engage coming off second best (Lennon-McCartney name reversal controversy with Yoko) so I do think in the most traditional sense Paul was adept at PR but when it came to the more modern, combative, argumentative and emotional style of PR that John and Yoko engaged in, Paul was totally out of his depth.
Your assessment of when Paul feels most comfortable doing P.R. makes a great deal of sense to me, Lizzie. Paul’s strength is positive P.R.: selling the brand. That’s a very different sort of P.R. from confrontational, public conflict in the press; from creating a new brand out of the destruction of the old one.
Not to mention that Paul’s eventual new brand — family, domesticity — is inherently viewed as “selling out” by the counterculture. One of the sections of the podcast we had to cut was a discussion Karen and I had about how one of Doggett’s books — “There’s a Riot Going On” — goes in depth into the extent to which some aspects of the counterculture viewed monogamy, family ,etc. as a betrayal; a way of propping up the establishment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That sounds really interesting! Will that cut section make it into a future episode?
I don’t think we’re planning on it. But the comment that was cut from the podcast was pretty much the same thing I said in the post: Doggett does a very good job of detailing aspects of the counterculture (including it’s at times ill-treatment of women) and how it rejected, as part of its ethos, aspects it considered “middle-class,” such as family, domesticity, etc. I believe its Nicholas Schaffner who declares that Paul’s McCartney album — both its music and its notes — was seen as a betrayal of countercultural values by the rock press. There are also some excellent essays exploring the issues of the identity of the rock press in The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles and the Cambridge Companion to Pop and Rock.
Almost all of the edits occur because of technical issues, so unfortunately some content gets removed. For example, at one point during the recording of this review, my mic sounded metallic and Erin and I had a brief tangential discussion about it while I tested my settings. In order to edit that tangential chatter out cleanly, I had to also edit out some of the conversation that preceeded it. I think Erin’s reference to “There’s A Riot Going On” in the podcast met the same fate.
Fortunately though, the reference Erin made to Doggett’s book during the podcast was a quick one and she was able to share that info with you here on the blog. 🙂
In answer to your question, I managed to obtain a copy of both Apple to the Core (£10) and John Lennon: for the Record (a mere £2.30!) from UK Amazon.
I finished listening to both parts of the podcast and really enjoyed it. You both offer such fantastically level-headed insight. Your analysis makes me reassess my own position, which is great. I particularly enjoyed the analysis of the trial. I must say, it is a very unsettling thought that there could be any possibility that Klein as well as John, George and Ringo deceived Paul. Klein on his own is bad enough, but I’d hope that the others weren’t in on it. No wonder Paul has consistently said it was such a painful time.
That’s excellent news, Mel; I haven’t seen a copy online for less than fifty/sixty bucks, so kudos to you for being able to get them.
What part of your position did you find yourself reassessing, Mel? As I mentioned in an earlier post, my re-reading had me re-assessing my own initial evaluation of the book as John Eastman vs. Allen Klein; having paid particular attention to Weiss’s comments in this reading, I now view it as John Eastman vs. Allen Klein vs. Brian Epstein.
I believe Stamp’s evaluation of the commission issue is that A. Paul could not have known about it, because he would have raised holy hell B. When Stamp asked the other Beatles about it, John declared that he was not aware of Klein taking any commission to which he was not entitled and, therefore, C. Either they altered the commissions orally without telling Paul or Klein took the commissions without telling all of them. Now, John was hardly a guy who was immersed in the business dealings at Apple, so can I conceive of a scenario where John agrees to change the commissions without quite understanding what he’s doing? Yes. But the lack of reaction from John and the other two when the evidence regarding the altered commissions is presented at trial is what tilts Stamp in to determining that it was presumably an oral agreement between the three of them in Klein; designed to leave McCartney unaware.
Like you, I would prefer to believe the former; that the other three were unaware. It’s one thing for Klein to deceive one or all of the Beatles in order to enrich himself; it’s another for three Beatles to deceive another Beatle in order to enrich their new manager.
Great updated info.
To be clear, I never stated that McCabe didn’t interview Paul; I asked the question. And, in the absence of any evidence in his book to the contrary, I wondered if bias was afoot.
The reason I asked the question was because McCabe was derelict in referencing his interview attempts in his bibliography, or anywhere else in the book. Moreover, he didn’t indicate whether he interviewed other clients of Klein’s, which I assume would have modifed his flawed attribution of blame, and reliance upon some inane counter-culture ethic, which I think he would find cringe-worthy today.
That McCabe, via his other work, spoke to his efforts to interview Paul and not in Apple To The Core; that he nevertheless drew his conclusions based on heavily biased and one-sided information; and that he did this in spite of his interests (and I assume, training) as an investigative journalist is, in my opinion, a major flaw, and a conclusion I would have come to whether I based that conclusion on Erin’s notes or on (re)reading the book.
Sorry, Karen, I probably should have worded that differently – was typing in a bit of a rush. I didn’t mean to misrepresent your words. It is curious that McCabe didn’t provide a list of interviewees. You’d think he’d want to verify his sources, right? He does name quite a few of his sources in John Lennon: for the Record, though why he did it then, and not earlier when it was relevant, is baffling.
To be clear, in case some reading this aren’t aware, John Lennon: for the Record is the full interview with John and Yoko at the St Regis Hotel, in the summer of 1971 that McCabe and Schonfeld conducted as part of their research for Apple to the Core. McCabe chose to publish the largely unused interview, in full, 13 years later in 1984. It’s a very enlightening read.
It’s a good point you raise about why didn’t McCabe interview Klein’s other clients. He does say it took nearly 3 months to set up the John/Yoko interview so maybe it was a question of time and/or the Stones etc. not granting him an interview?
Interestingly, months before Apple to the Core was published, McCabe flagged up Klein’s dodgy financial dealings concerning George’s Concert for Bangladesh, writing a sort of expose on him for New York magazine. Klein, in turn, sued McCabe for libel for 150 mil but later dropped the case. That’s from Wiki, although there are sources to support, including this very interesting RS article detailing McCabe’s allegations against Klein. It apparently turned into quite a public spat. Weirdly, Phil Spector wades into the mess! https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/did-allen-klein-take-bangla-desh-money-37985/.
Information on Peter McCabe is hard to come by, but my assumption is that McCabe wasn’t a Klein sympathiser; if anything, he was out to get him. His pro-John bias, however, is more apparent. You’re right too, that for an investigative journalist, he was a bit sloppy with references, which is definitely a flaw of the book.
I understand, Mel — I am perpetually typing in a rush. In fact, I’m typing in one right now, with one toddler crawling under the kitchen table and another asking me to read her a Bernstein Bears book.
My best guess as to why he didn’t provide his list of interviewees in “Apple to the Core” is simply because he didn’t have to. For 1972, his methodology is okay-ish. It would have been going above and beyond what he was required to do, so he didn’t bother. In fact, the first book I can recall in Beatles historiography that lists the interviewees is … Albert Goldman and “The Lives of John Lennon.” And that’s published in 1988, 16 years after Apple to the Core. There are still books that are heavily, heavily reliant on interviews — such as Conversations with McCartney, or Larry Kane — that don’t bother to date and or list interviewees.
Not being overly familiar with the intricate details of the Stones vs. Klein, beyond how it impacts the Beatles, could the Stones have been involved in their own legal dealings with Klein in this time period? That could provide a reason as to why the Stones didn’t want to talk with McCabe; standard legal boilerplate “Due to ongoing legal issues, I am unable to comment at this time.”
I hope the podcast didn’t come across as me arguing that McCabe was a Klein sympathizer: I didn’t see that in my reading, although McCabe’s statements towards the end labeling the Eastman’s as the aggressors in that conflict are interesting, given that for much of the book he tends to say: “This is what side A claims, this is what side B claims.” I see in McCabe a more general sympathy for the counterculture and, therefore, the side of the split that seemingly embodies the counterculture — John, George, and Ringo — of which Klein is a crucial element. McCabe does criticize Klein for refusing to acknowledge Brian’s strengths and victories as manager; noting that perhaps Klein refuses to do so because he believes it will somehow undermine his own position.
The difference I would draw between Apple/Core and the other books is that Apple/Core is not a biography per se but an investigative piece, and I hold investigative journalists to a higher standard. I expect investigative journalists to address the limitations of their methodology and how those limitations may affect their conclusions.
Probably a bridge too far in rock journalism, although their work has such a powerful effect upon a band’s historiography.
Not to worry Mel; I just wanted to clarify where I was coming from.
Funny you mention that McCabe wasn’t a Klein sympathizer; According to Wikipedia, a book reviewer from the Times panned the book in 1973, saying it portrayed Epstein as the “hero” at the expense of Klein AND the Eastmans. Conversely, in his book, The Rough Guide to the Beatles, Chris Ingham stated that [the book] takes the view that [the Beatles] were mismanaged from the start; that Brian Epstein, though enthusiastic and gifted, was erratic and effectively out of his depth from the beginning.”
Seems to me that both points of view, written some 30 years apart, missed the mark.
So Paul’s own brother betrayed his privacy? Good lord, that’s appalling. If an angry John Lennon thought Mike McCartney would be a good source of “Paul’s character,” that means John thought Mike would have nothing good to say.
It’s no wonder Paul kept quiet. He literally had no allies in this awful time. Even his brother took Lennon’s side, it seems.
Well, my understanding is that John instructed McCabe to try and get information from Mike McCartney, but I don’t believe Mike ever did do an interview with McCabe. Certainly McCabe doesn’t have any quotes from Mike McCartney anywhere in “Apple to the Core,” or anywhere else that I’ve seen. What’s more, just because John is presumably assuming that Mike will have negative material doesn’t mean it’s a correct assumption on John’s part. I have no doubt that Mike and Paul fought fiercely over any number of things, but John, whose relationship with his own half-sisters was notably different than Paul’s with Mike’s, may not have been the best judge of sibling relationships; especially siblings as close in age as Paul and Mike. What’s more, my best guess is that when John was referring to interviewing Mike regarding insight on Paul’s character, that it was focused again on that image of Paul as establishment; the domestic life at home he enjoyed with Jim McCartney and Mike, even following his Mom’s death — the same one John mentions in the St. Regis interviews. Being establishment and domestic absolutely was a character issue in this time period, and that was probably the main angle that John believed Mike could provide greater detail on, because who better?
You do have a meeting — a casual get-together, really — with Mike and John in the early 70s, which was low key and, accd. to Mike, they didn’t really talk about Beatles stuff. What’s more, Mike has given interviews — most notably in 1981 — pushing back against some of the “Lennon Remembers” stereotypes/cliches and noting the difference in how John and Paul deal/dealt with conflict, with John being more confrontational and Paul being more circumspect. I think we have a considerable amount of evidence indicating that Mike was allied with his brother.
Mike didn’t betray Paul’s privacy; I believe the quote from John is that he is suggesting that Mike be contacted.
Mike has always been and continues to be extremely careful of his brother’s right to privacy. I recall an video interview right after George Harrison died, and the interviewer asked Mike how Paul was, and Mike politely refused to answer, saying in essence that’s a family matter.
Erin, Karen: Just listened. Thanks for these. “Apple To The Core” is probably my favorite, having read and re-read every several years such that the binding and pages finally fell apart. A great snapshot in time. I was in HS when the Beatles shockingly broke up and, to that point, it was about the music and the Beatlemania. Only a few years later, my curiosity reached out and bought this book. It was the one for me providing insight into the breakup and the issues that still interest me today. About placing blame for the split, I seem to recall this book making reference of Americans being responsible for killing the goose. Yes, disappointing McCabe didn’t interview Paul. If the Eastmans gagged him, then he was being blamed for the breakup and couldn’t directly respond- sounds kind of depressing. The only other plausible explanation is maybe Mary told him “If you don’t have anything nice to say……..”.
..But the Eastmans didn’t gag him, not entirely. Here’s a portion of that New Musical Express Interview Paul gave in November of 1971, (courtesy of The Beatles’ Database):
To which John replied:
Maybe it was the response he received from John when he did this interview that finally convinced Paul to keep his mouth shut and let the Eastmans do the talking.
Well, I’d have go back and count, Karen, because when I was researching my book I only counted up the interviews coming from each side from 1969-1971, but my impression is that Paul’s amount of interviews actually picked up after his disagreement with John in NME. It’s pure speculation, but, as I wondered in my reply to SAK, I wonder if the Eastman’s advised him to lay relatively low, press-wise, until after the trial was over, one way or another. The trial ends in March 1971, and in April Paul gives his life interview, so I wonder if his victory at trial reassured him and/or the Eastman’s enough that they thought, okay, we’ve got this crucial victory in our pocket; now let’s start talking to the press again.
Well now that’s interesting. Paul always said that he never wanted to get into a battle of words with John (and, reading John’s response in NME, I can get why), but as you speculate, maybe his trial victory bolstered his confidence.
I’ve had books fall apart on me, too, SAK, because they were too well-loved. The library copy of Apple to the Core wasn’t in the best shape either, and I doubt it’s a book that’s been checked out too many times; some of the pages were loose. And someone had written in the library copy, which is a heinous crime punishable by three hours of shelving books.
I would have to look at the notes I typed up to see what it says regarding blaming Americans for destroying the Beatles, although I do recall the intro with the goose and the eggs and different men and people approaching the goose. Even more than Americans being to blame, it appears to me that McCabe regarded the commercialization of music — when money became the driving factor/reward for the band — to be to blame, and he certainly ties certain American figures in with that. For example, McCabe complains about the commercialization of the San Francisco music scene corrupting it.
I can easily see the Eastman’s offering strong advice not to go on a press offensive although, as Karen noted, he certainly did do some interviews here and there. And, as even Apple to the Core notes, Paul was not averse to arguing against the Eastman’s when he felt strongly enough about something; one of the points McCabe makes is that Paul would go along with Klein when it suited him, and then run into the willing arms of the Eastman’s and obfuscate when there was an element he didn’t like. I’ve always taken Paul’s press silence in this period to be due to a number of factors; his depression; the Eastman’s advice; the reality that he knew he would not win a war of words with John Lennon; and his upbringing, being taught “least said, soonest mended” from an early age. One thing that’s also striking is that in some of Paul’s interviews regarding this period you have an element of self-doubt regarding his own behavior/actions: how devastating would it have been, reputation wise, for Paul to launch a press offensive and then get crushed at the trial? Perhaps the Eastman’s were advising him (again, pure speculation) to lay relatively low until after the trial was decided and then, once he got his victory, could at least meet the press with that particular card in his pocket: “Well, hey, I know John claimed this in Lennon Remembers, but remember what Justice Stamp said about Klein?”
Btw, kudos to your Browns, SAK. That front four looked very good in the Chiefs game. I’ve said it before; if the Chiefs don’t make it to the Super Bowl this year, I’m rooting for Browns and/or the Bills; I like the idea of it going to long-suffering fan base; someone who’s never seen their team win one … and the Chargers don’t count, since there are no Chargers fans anyway.
As an aside: AbeBooks is a good and inexpensive source for out of print books. Each seller is required to categorize the quality of the book and they are priced accordingly. You often have multiple sellers for a given book, which gives you some choices. The only downside is that, depending where the seller lives, the book can take awhile to get to you.
I’ve purchased a few from AbeBooks and would highly recommend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
More than anything, I was blown away by Linda’s “friends” claiming that she wasn’t a good photographer. Whatever else anyone might think of her, it’s obvious the woman knew how to take great pictures!
Yes; that, along with the claim from her friends that she and Paul were now so establishment they had stopped smoking marijuana, were claims I found amusing due to their very absurdity. Certainly, the criticism of Linda as a photographer didn’t end with “Apple to the Core”: “Shout!” has a similarly dismissive comment, something very similar to “her skill as a photographer was not held in high esteem.” Neither McCabe nor Norman acknowledge that she may have had any talent in the area, conveniently ignoring her accolades.
I know next to nothing about photography, but I find the trope used in “Apple to the Core” and other books, where Linda’s access and skill as a photographer is essentially reduced to “Well, she accessed the rock bands because of her long legs, short skirts, blonde hair and big breasts” while giving her virtually zero credit for having any actual skill as a photographer appalling. To deny she had any talent at all — which various authors did — and indicate she only got the opportunities she did due to her appearance has more than a whiff of sexism.
Here are my notes on the subject:
McCabe Describes Linda: “her natural assets – high cheekbones, wide, swaying hips and well-proportioned breasts” – set many a rock star drooling.” (98)
“Her friends say she was not a good photographer.” (Author does nothing to counter that with the acknowledgement that Linda won the 1967 AP female photographer of the year award or got the first Rolling Stone cover by a female photographer.) (98)
Another aspect that I find interesting in the depiction of Linda was the perception she was not attractive enough to “deserve” Paul McCartney; the whole “dog with wings” joke. (This perception certainly existed in the depiction of Yoko as well; that she was simply not beautiful enough to deserve a Beatle.). So in “Apple to the Core” Linda is this blonde bombshell whose appearance is the sole reason she is able to access these rock stars and take their photos (her talent has nothing to do with it) but criticism already existed arguing that Linda wasn’t beautiful enough to warrant a Beatle, and certainly not the “Cute” Beatle. So Linda was a bombshell when it served the author’s purpose, but her appearance was perceived as unworthy at other times.
What a bunch of sexist drivel–and laughingly contradictory.
I’d really like to listen to this podcast Erin – is there a way to download an mp3 by any chance? Thanks, Marc
I would happily help you if I could, Marc: but I’ll refer all tech questions to Karen; she’s the expert there.
I’m not sure Anchor supports an MP3 download, Marc, truth be told. But, if you click on the links provided, you will be taken to that particular host site and should be able to hear it without any problem. Have you tried going to the Anchor site?
Loved the episode, thanks! Not much else to say but I wanted to express my appreciation for your time and efforts. (Haven’t read the book because of the price, but I see it quoted a lot of places, so.)
LikeLiked by 1 person