Glen Weldon's "Superman: The Unauthorized Biography"

Glen Weldon is a freelance writer, book critic and movie reviewer.

He applied the “Page 99 Test” to his new book, Superman: The Unauthorized Biography, and reported the following:

Turns out page 99 is all about Fredric Wertham's 1950s public crusade against comic books in general and Superman in particular. Which does line up with FMF's maxim, as the central thesis of the book is that Superman reflects the cultural shifts that take place around him -- that each generation gets the Superman it deserves. And Wertham's crusade precipitated one such shift that changed how Superman was perceived for decades afterwards.

Wertham was a powerful guy whose belief that reading comics caused juvenile delinquency helped launch community crackdowns on comics and, ultimately, congressional investigations as well. He might have had a point about crime comics, many of which were crazy, violent, and crazily violent, but his repeated accusations that Superman was a Nazi, for example, were nothing short of hysterical (and I bet they caused the Man of Steel's Jewish writers and editors no small amount of tsuris.)

Violent crime comics largely disappeared, and superhero comics made several changes to allay public fears about violence. Superman's adventures became more broadly cartoonish and whimsical. Interestingly, it's at this point in Superman's history that the provenance for his amazing abilities changes. From now on, it's the Earth's yellow sun that bestows upon him his super-powers. His creators original concept -- namely, that Kryptonians are a mighty and genetically perfect "super-race" -- quietly disappears from the chronicles. So at least one sense, Wertham's Nazi accusations must have stung.

Learn more about the book and author at Glen Weldon's website and follow him on Twitter.

--Marshal Zeringue

Don Herzog"s "Household Politics"

Don Herzog is the Edson R. Sunderland Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School.

He applied the “Page 99 Test” to his latest book, Household Politics: Conflict in Early Modern England, and reported the following:

Today, dear reader, we turn to early modern England for our ominous bedtime story. Once upon a time, men ruled their families – and their authority was unquestioned. People thought it was natural or necessary, part of the woodwork of the world. Indeed men’s authority was invisible, thanks to the public/private distinction: women and the family were private, and nothing private is political. So people staggered through life in a big sleep: that’s how ideology works. Good night and sleep tight.

That’s the fairy tale that I cheerfully demolish in Household Politics. Sure, you can line up centuries-old sermons and fancy works of political theory that preach the subordination of women. But these texts were blather. There’s no point insisting that women are inferior, that men ought to rule, unless other people deny it. And plenty of men and women alike did deny it. They rolled their eyes in caustic disdain at the putative wisdom of the sermons and political theorists. They knew that the authority of men was contingent and political, that members of their household were locked in conflict. I look at diaries, handbills, jokes (more than a few about excrement), letters, newspapers, novels, pamphlets, parliamentary debates, periodicals, plays, proverbs, servants’ manuals, songs, trials…. And I deliberately blur or ignore the distinction between intellectual and social history. I’m not interested in any contrast between “discourse” and “material reality.” I’m trying to reconstruct a social world that’s funny, ornery, nauseating, and lethal.

Page 99 finds me scrutinizing some eighteenth-century dictionary entries on public and private and beginning to canvass claims that the household is a “little commonwealth” or that a husband is a “Monarch for life.” Not as fun as the poop jokes, I guess. But not as bloodcurdling as the husband who beat his wife to death for not dutifully succumbing to Scripture, or as the women who murdered their servant girl and made their servant boy eat shit, either.

Learn more about Household Politics at the Yale University Press: website.

--Marshal Zeringue

Thane Rosenbaum's "Payback: The Case for Revenge"

Thane Rosenbaum is a novelist, essayist, and law professor. He is the author of The Myth of Moral Justice: Why Our Legal System Fails to Do What’s Right, as well as four novels, The Golems of Gotham, Second Hand Smoke, the novel-in-stories, Elijah Visible, and the novel for young adults, The Stranger within Sarah Stein. His articles, reviews, and essays appear frequently in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and Huffington Post, among others. He lives in New York, where he is the John Whelan Distinguished Lecturer in Law at Fordham Law School and directs the Forum on Law, Culture, and Society.

Rosenbaum applied the “Page 99 Test” to his latest book, Payback: The Case for Revenge, and reported the following:

The tale behind (or should it be tail?) Payback: The Case for Revenge is very nicely encapsulated on its 99th page, the middle of a chapter entitled The Science of Mad. It is there that otherwise skeptical readers—those who have always been told to “turn the other cheek” and that an “eye for an eye” leads to blindness—come face-to-face with their worst nightmare: Human beings are hardwired for vengeance. It’s who we are—embedded in our genes, imprinted in our DNA. Indeed, our evolutionary history has very much depended on the certainty of deserved payback for both our moral and physical survival. Despite what religions have preached and what states have legislated, we can’t live without our revenge, nor should we have to.

In examining the human brain under conditions where cheaters are exposed and very much deserving of their comeuppances, through brain scans and clever neuroscientific experiments, scientists have determined that human beings simply have no tolerance for wrongdoers, and will often gladly give something up of themselves in order to ensure that the wrong is righted and payback is received. This is the world of the “altruistic punisher,” he or she who avenges out of pure altruism alone—think Batman and Dexter—the one who otherwise has no personal stake in the matter but can’t live knowing that someone has gone unpunished.

Our brains react both to situations where unfairness is made visible (a cheater is caught in the act), and the anticipation of just deserts (retaliation is on the way), which, somewhat ironically, triggers the same neural sensations, and in the same location of the human brain, as the anticipation of a sweet dessert. Conclusion: Homer, Lord Byron and Shakespeare were all intuitively correct—revenge is, indeed, sweet.

Learn more about Payback at the University of Chicago Press website.

--Marshal Zeringue

Dale R. Herspring's "Civil-Military Relations and Shared Responsibility"

Dale R. Herspring is University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Political Science at Kansas State University. He is the author of numerous books, including Rumsfeld's Wars: The Arrogance of Power.

Herspring applied the “Page 99 Test” to his latest book, Civil-Military Relations and Shared Responsibility: A Four-Nation Study, and reported the following:

Page 99 deals with civil-military relations in Germany. In particular, it focuses on Helmut Schmidt's role in working to overcome the mistrust of the "Captains from Unna" vis-v-vis the political leadership. It also begins a new section on additional problems faced by the German military at that time.

This book takes issue with the approach advocated by analysts such as Samuel Huntington and Michael Desch who dichotomize civil-military relations. It argues that focus on political control in the four, stable countries analyzed in this book, misses the point. All four armed forces (the US, Canada, Germany and Russia) are under control. The officers of all polities accept civilian supremacy and took an oath of allegiance.

Since the civilians are always in charge, it is up to them to decide on the nature of the relationship. In those countries where the civilian leaders respect military culture, the relationship will be more positive and the military leaders will be more useful to civilians if they interact in a non-confrontational manner. Indeed, the optimal form of civil-military relations is one of shared responsibility between the two groups.

Failure on the part of the political leadership to respect the military leadership and its culture will antagonize senior military officials who will feel less free to express their views. Such a situation will deprive senior civilian officials, most of whom have no military experience, of the expert advice of those most capable of assessing the far-reaching forms of violence.

Learn more about Civil-Military Relations and Shared Responsibility at the Johns Hopkins University Press website.

--Marshal Zeringue

Gary Steiner's "Animals and the Limits of Postmodernism"

Gary Steiner is John Howard Harris Professor of Philosophy at Bucknell University. He is the author of Descartes as a Moral Thinker: Christianity, Technology, Nihilism; Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals in the History of Western Philosophy; and Animals and the Moral Community: Mental Life, Moral Status, and Kinship.

Steiner applied the “Page 99 Test” to his new book, Animals and the Limits of Postmodernism, and reported the following:

In recent years there has been a great profusion of writing, both popular and scholarly, about the moral status of animals. In academic circles much of this writing has been "postmodern" in character, which is to say that it focuses on the irreducible multiplicity and elusiveness of our experience of animal others, and it roundly criticizes traditional efforts to define animals, human beings, and the human-animal boundary in clear and unequivocal terms. Postmodern writers allege that traditional humanistic claims about the supposed moral superiority of human beings over nonhuman animals are based on reductive oversimplifications of both human and animal experience, and that these oversimplifications do violence to the irreducible richness of our experience of sentient life. Many postmodern writers have sought to show that humanistic notions such as agency, individuality, and responsibility not only distort the multiplicity of experiential phenomena, but that these distortions conceal efforts to exclude marginal others from full moral consideration. Where postmodern writers have focused on the marginalization of human others such as women and people of color, some of these writers have more recently sought to extend this critique

Page 99 -- click to enlarge

to the dominion that human beings have long exercised over nonhuman animals. Thus Derrida and others have sought to open us to the possibility that many nonhuman animals participate in logos (reason or language), even if they do not participate in specifically human logos. Nonhuman animals, like human beings, have a share in suffering and mortality, and this is sufficient for acknowledging that animals merit moral consideration considerably greater than human beings have accorded them in the history of Western culture. And yet postmodern thinkers assert no clear and categorical commitments about what we owe to animals; these thinkers rest satisfied with what I call "feel-good ethics," ethical commitments that permit us to express abhorrence at moral injustices but which do not push us out of our comfort zones by requiring us to do anything concrete to counter the injustices that we so abhor. Thus postmodernism is as morally impotent as it is rhetorically seductive; in fact, as I argue in Animals and the Limits of Postmodernism, postmodernism simply legitimizes and reinforces, if only implicitly and against its own intention, the very violence against animals and other marginalized others that it purports to reject as pernicious.

Learn more about Animals and the Limits of Postmodernism at the Columbia University Press website.

--Marshal Zeringue

Al Cambronne's "Deerland"

Al Cambronne is a writer from northern Wisconsin. His work has appeared in Canoe & Kayak, Cooking Wild, Deer & Deer Hunting, Meatpaper, Sierra, and The Washington Post. His new book, Deerland: America's Hunt for Ecological Balance and the Essence of Wildness, was published in April 2013 by Lyons Press.

Cambronne applied the “Page 99 Test” to Deerland and reported the following:

Deerland explores the major role of deer in the environment and in American culture; in both cases that role is much larger than most of us realize. The U.S. now has about 30 million deer, a hundred times more than just a century ago. They routinely disrupt entire ecosystems. They ravage our gardens and suburban landscaping, and every year they kill and injure hundreds of us on our highways. No wild animal larger than a skunk or raccoon is anywhere near so numerous and widespread.

Still, deer are magical. Their mere existence makes the woods feel wilder. They signify far more to us than just meat, antlers, or a graceful, mysterious creature slipping through the shadows. In our collective imaginations they’ve become an archetypal symbol of the wilderness experience—or at least of a gentrified country lifestyle.

It’s no wonder, then, that so many of us want to see more deer. What’s surprising is the things we’ll do to make that happen. Page 99 of Deerland comes about halfway through Chapter 4, “Feeders, Baiters, and Plotters.” In that chapter, I tell about three different practices: feeding deer recreationally, hunting deer over bait, and planting small “food plots” with crops specifically chosen to please the palates of deer—deer that may themselves be harvested as they’re harvesting their very last mouthful.

All three of these practices have one thing in common: someone is spending time and money to manipulate the diets and behavior of deer. As different as their motives might seem, they all want the same thing. Millions of Americans have become feeders, baiters, and plotters because they want to see more deer. It’s a simple enough desire, and a very natural one. Its consequences, however, are not.

Within that chapter, page 99 comes in a passage about “the Great Bait Debate, and a Mysterious Thing Called Fair Chase.” The gear, tactics, and values of American hunters have changed dramatically over just a single generation, and hunting deer over bait is a big part of that story. Hunters often wax philosophical about a rather nebulous concept they call “fair chase.” As well they should. Fundamentally, fair chase is about more than just the ethics and esthetics of shooting deer over a pile of corn; it’s about the meaning of hunting, the essence of wildness, and the very nature of nature.

In the first full paragraph on page 99, I attempt to explain all this more simply:

As much as hunters enjoy a beautiful day in the woods, and as much as they claim it doesn’t really matter whether they get a deer, they tend to make these statements with less conviction after they’ve experienced a certain number of deerless days in a row. Still, if deer invariably showed up on cue precisely three minutes after hunters loaded their rifles and stepped into the woods, then that wouldn’t feel quite right, either. Not too hard, not too easy. Just right.

But hunting is just one part of the story I tell in Deerland. After an insider’s tour of America’s Deer-Industrial Complex and a peek inside subcultures that are unfamiliar even to most hunters, it’s time for the “consequences” part of our story. To learn more about the ecological impacts of overabundant deer, I head back out into the woods—but this time with botanists, ecologists, and foresters. Next, I venture out into the field—literally—with USDA wildlife specialists to get a first-hand look at how hungry deer can make farming even more of a gamble than it already was.

To learn more about deer-vehicle crashes, I ride along with a state trooper for an entire eight-hour shift. Along the way, I learn about a lot more than roadkill. Then, to better understand the aftermath of these crashes, I visit a backwoods body shop that owes over 60% of its business to deer. When business is slow, the owner goes fishing and tells his wife to stop worrying. Someone will hit a deer soon.

Then, as I talk with experts to learn more about the problems associated with overabundant deer in America’s cities and suburbs, I learn that once again there are plenty of tough questions, but no easy answers. All too often, balance remains elusive.

Learn more about Deerland at Al Cambronne’s website and blog.

--Marshal Zeringue

Erin G. Carlston's "Double Agents"

Erin G. Carlston is associate professor of English and comparative literature at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where she serves on the Board of the Carolina Center for Jewish Studies and has directed the Program in Sexuality Studies. Her publications include Thinking Fascism: Sapphic Modernism and Fascist Modernity and articles in Modern Fiction Studies, American Literary History, Aztlán, and Romanic Review.

Carlston applied the “Page 99 Test” to her new book, Double Agents: Espionage, Literature, and Liminal Citizens, and reported the following:

Double Agents investigates the associations that have been drawn, in both literary works and other media, among male homosexuals, Jews, and Communists as “invisible others.” In particular, I argue that such people evoke anxieties about the cohesion and security of the nation-state that are often expressed by representing them as traitors and spies, “double agents” who appear to be citizens but are actually operating as moles, subversives. In illustrating this claim I consider genres, countries, texts and historical periods that include the Dreyfus Affair in France; Marcel Proust’s massive novel In Search of Lost Time; the early poetry of W.H. Auden; the Burgess-Maclean scandal in Britain; the Cold War, Red Scare and Lavender Panic; the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg “atomic espionage” trial in the U.S.; and Tony Kushner’s play Angels in America.

Page 99 of Double Agents is about Sodom and Gomorrah, Volume IV of In Search of Lost Time. I discuss the way homosexuality and Jewishness are presented in In Search of Lost Time as opaque sign systems that the straight, Catholic narrator has to learn to decipher, and I argue that the novel itself is a “decoding device.” I’m especially interested in the way that Proust uses the Dreyfus Affair—an 1894 spy scandal in which a Jewish army officer was accused of selling military secrets to a bisexual German diplomat—to bring sexuality and Jewishness together and to teach his audience to read history and social relationships from the perspective of these “secret” identities. As I write on p. 99,

...part of the novel’s project is to involve the putatively heterosexual, Gentile reader in the unveiling of the mysteries of inversion and Jewishness, so that she can piece together the proleptic fragments of information in the earlier volumes and reinsert them into a coherent narrative later on. This requires that the reader, like Marcel, take on the identity of a spy herself, peering in at these presumably alien beings and learning to decipher their codes.... Furthermore, if we accept Hannah Arendt’s argument that Proust’s own identity as a (partially) closeted homosexual and (largely) assimilated Jew positioned him particularly well as an observer of—a spy on—salon society (80), we might figure Proust’s relationship to the world he describes in terms of espionage as well.

Espionage is, in fact, a productive metaphor not only for the relationship of both the writer and the reader to the text, but for all the human relationships within the text.

While p. 99 is about just one novel, it’s nicely representative of the major themes and methodology of Double Agents: it demonstrates how I use close readings to explain both literary texts and historical documents, and indicates what the idea of “espionage” can tell us not only about literature, but also about periods of crisis in political and cultural history.

Learn more about Double Agents at the Columbia University Press website.

--Marshal Zeringue

Michael Suk-Young Chwe's "Jane Austen, Game Theorist"

Michael Suk-Young Chwe is associate professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the author of Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination, and Common Knowledge.

He applied the “Page 99 Test” to his new book, Jane Austen, Game Theorist, and reported the following:

Page 99 discusses a favorite, and most revealing, episode in Austen's Mansfield Park. Fanny Price, a young and seemingly powerless girl adopted into the Bertram family, must make a decision. She has an amber cross ornament, a gift from her beloved brother William, but has nothing to wear it with for the upcoming ball. Mary Crawford, the sister of Henry Crawford, a young man who may be toying with Fanny, gives Fanny a gold necklace. Edmund Bertram, the caring young man whom Fanny really likes, gives Fanny a gold chain. Fanny must now choose between Mary's necklace and Edmund's chain.

This choice is difficult because Edmund likes Mary and even perhaps intends to marry her, and thus Edmund asks Fanny to wear Mary's necklace in order to show her gratitude toward Mary. But Fanny would much rather wear Edmund's chain.

Fanny is relieved to find that "upon trial the one given her by Miss Crawford would by no means go through the ring of the cross. She had, to oblige Edmund, resolved to wear it—but it was too large for the purpose. His therefore must be worn; and having, with delightful feelings, joined the chain and the cross, those memorials of the two most beloved of her heart . . . she was able, without an effort, to resolve on wearing Miss Crawford's necklace too" (Mansfield Park, chapter 27).

My book argues that Jane Austen anticipated many ideas now considered to be part of game theory, the mathematical analysis of strategic thinking. Game theory explains people's behavior in terms of their choices. A favorite game theory result is that sometimes not having a choice can be better. Fanny choosing between necklace and chain is Austen's illustration of this result: by not being able to choose, Fanny can wear Edmund's chain blamelessly. But Austen, who is committed to the "power of choice," is not content to leave it at this: she has Fanny choose to wear Mary's necklace too. As my book notes on page 99, "Even when it seems better not to have to make a choice, Austen shows that another choice can make things better still."

Learn more about the book and author at the Jane Austen, Game Theorist website.

--Marshal Zeringue

Anna Sun's "Confucianism as a World Religion"

Anna Sun is Assistant Professor of Sociology and Asian Studies at Kenyon College.

She applied the “Page 99 Test” to her new book, Confucianism as a World Religion: Contested Histories and Contemporary Realities, and reported the following:

What an intriguing idea to make books take the “Page 99 Test”! I opened my book to page 99, and what I found is a section entitled “Confucianism as a World Religion in Today’s Popular Books and Textbooks.” Indeed, if you have ever heard about Confucianism, you probably already know that it is one of the “great world religions.” On page 99 I show that the majority of popular books on world religions today, such as the best-selling ones on Amazon.com, include Confucianism.

But as a matter of fact, most Chinese people do not consider Confucianism a religion. Ask a Chinese friend you know, and see how the person answers the question. Your friend might begin by saying: “Well, it is not! But it is complicated. Where should I start?” For instance, Confucianism is not included in the Chinese government official classification of the “Five Major Religions” of China, which includes Buddhism, Daoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism.

Why this discrepancy? Whose knowledge can we trust in our search for the answer to the question “Is Confucianism a world Religion”? For me, the research was almost like a detective story. It first took me back in time to late nineteenth century Oxford, where the new academic discipline of comparative religion emerged at the same time the new discourse of world religions was being invented. It was Friedrich Max Müller, a founder of comparative religion, and James Legge, a former Scottish missionary to China, who first cast Confucianism as a world religion in the larger context of colonial knowledge production about the East.

But is Confucianism a religion in China today? My research then led me to Confucius temples around China, where I observed the fascinating recent revival of Confucian rituals. The Chinese government has been consciously promoting Confucianism in the past ten years, staging ceremonies honoring Confucius as well as using his name for the ever-expanding fleet of Chinese language institutions abroad, the Confucius Institutes. What will be the future of the Confucianism? We are the ones who are now witnessing its thrilling developments and transformations.

Learn more about Confucianism as a World Religion at Anna Sun’s website.

--Marshal Zeringue

David Farber's "Everybody Ought to be Rich"

David Farber is Professor of History at Temple University. He is the author of The Rise and Fall of Modern American Conservatism; Taken Hostage: The Iran Hostage Crisis and America's First Encounter with Radical Islam; and Sloan Rules: Alfred P. Sloan and the Triumph of General Motors.

He applied the “Page 99 Test” to his new book, Everybody Ought to Be Rich: The Life and Times of John J. Raskob, Capitalist, and reported the following:

On page 99 we meet Billy Durant, the erratic founder of General Motors. Durant is one of the co-stars of my biography of John Raskob, the “organizing genius” of early 20th century capitalism. Raskob, as head of finances at GM, teamed up with Durant in the 1910s to re-capitalize and restructure GM in a bid to move the fledgling company past industry leader, Ford. As I write on page 99, they had a beautiful partnership right until Raskob “came to understand that Billy, though a lovable, charming, spectacularly shrewd business visionary, had to go.” The history of capitalism, as page 99 suggests, is not a story filled with sweetness and light.

Throughout his life, Raskob had a gift for partnering up with extraordinary men, including Pierre du Pont, Alfred Sloan, Al Smith, and Cardinal Francis Spellman. Raskob was a master of finance and made his first millions at Du Pont and then GM. He envisioned, built, and held a controlling interest in the Empire State Building. He ran Al Smith’s 1928 presidential campaign and then headed the Democratic National Committee until Roosevelt and his boys deposed him. Raskob then helped invent modern American conservatism by founding the American Liberty League, an anti-New Deal “Super-Pac” funded by super-wealthy men.

Raskob, a devout Catholic who donated tens of millions to his Church, believed that capitalism could be made to work for everyone. He helped establish modern consumer credit by institutionalizing auto loans at GM and by promoting employee stock ownership plans and mass investment trusts. Raskob insisted that under a capitalist system, “Everybody Ought to be Rich.” Unfortunately, the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression got in the way of his vision of a free market wonderland.

My biography of Raskob is intended to be an empathic account of one of America’s least well known but influential capitalists. It is also a story of a man who believed too much in his own hype; Raskob was an extraordinarily talented and driven man who never much understood how the great majority of Americans made their way through the stormy seas of modern capitalism.

From page 99:

... Between 1915 and 1918, Raskob moved in stages from DuPont to GM and from Pierre’s ablest lieutenant to his own man. As his investments in GM increased, and even as he convinced Pierre to invest more of his own money in GM, and then as he won over the DuPont Company Executive Committee to sink tens of millions of dollars into GM stock, Raskob remained almost completely under the spell of GM’s founder, Billy Durant. At the same time, though, Raskob gradually came to understand that Billy, though a lovable, charming, spectacularly shrewd business visionary, had to go.

General Motors was the brainchild of William Crapo Durant, known to his legion of friends and admirers as Billy. Durant was a spectacular entrepreneur, a capitalist risk-taker of the first order, a man who could, in the near legendary words of his onetime employee Walter Chrysler, charm a bird out of a tree. He had been born at the end of 1861, making him a generation older than Raskob, and his upbringing could not have been more different than Raskob’s. Durant’s maternal grandfather had been a successful businessman, railroad president, and then the governor of Michigan; his uncle was a US congressman. The family was full of hard workers, men and women of integrity who had made good and served their communities honorably. At the same time, Billy’s father, also a great charmer, proved himself to everyone’s satisfaction to be a ne’er do well, a something-for-nothing stock-market plunger, and a drunk. Durant’s father came and went during Billy’s early years, finally disappearing before Billy turned ten.His mother returned to live with her well-to-do and ultra-respectable family in Flint, Michigan. Fatherless, young Billy Durant, in the words of his biographer, “was buried under waves of maternal cosseting ... garbed like a little prince.”8 Durant saw it much the same way, telling a journalist, with tears in his eyes, that his mother “always thought I was a wonderful boy. And I have tried not to disappoint her.”9

Billy Durant, child of a scandalous marriage and spoiled by his adoring mother, grew up to be man of uncanny confidence with little sense of limits. He was blessed with a talent—too much a talent, it turned out—for business risk and financial improvisation as great as any person alive in the early years of the twentieth century. A salesman of prodigious ability, by his late thirties he had mastered the world of business by creating the largest horse-drawn cart business in the United States and Canada, overseeing sixteen factories and a spectacularly successful sales operation. But in the very first years of the twentieth century, Durant left the horse-drawn cart behind. He had seen the future in the automobile before almost anyone else, and though without mechanical knowledge or aptitude he made himself one of the avatars of the brand new industry.

Learn more about Everybody Ought to Be Rich at the Oxford University Press website.

--Marshal Zeringue