|
Richard
Conniff
Author of
The Natural History of the Rich
talks with Robert Birnbaum
 Posted:
November 5, 2002
Copyright 2002
by Robert Birnbaum
All photos by Red Diaz / Duende Publishing
Print this interview.
Richard Conniff is a journalist and essayist whose
work has appeared in such publications as Worth, Smithsonian,
Architectural Digest, and National Geographic. He is
the author of a number of books, including Rats: The Good, The
Bad and The Ugly; Spineless Wonders: Strange Tales from the
Invertebrate World; and Every Creeping Thing: True Tales
of Faintly Repulsive Wildlife. His newest book is entitled The
Natural History of the Rich: A Field Guide. Richard Conniff
lives in Connecticut.
Robert Birnbaum:
I have to ask, what do you have against Ralph Lauren?
Richard Conniff: I don’t have anything
against Ralph Lauren.
RB: Sure you do. (laughs)
RC: My agent hates him. I’m wearing
a Ralph Lauren jacket, right now.
RB: I was going to get to that. (laughs)
RC: It’s my agent. He had a real grudge
against Lauren. And he’s the guy who made me write this book.
He said, “This is a great book, you need to do it.” And
I kept saying, “Ahhh, I don’t know.” And so he talked
me into it. But it’s his grudge, not mine. Actually, I saw
Ralph Lauren last week. I was at a restaurant. Interesting guy,
he’s worth 2 billion dollars according to the recent Forbes.
RB: It would appear from some of your writing
credentials, the rich are not a milieu that you are unfamiliar with?
RC: I’ve done 2 basic things for the
last 20 years. One is to write about animals for National Geographic
and Smithsonian magazine. And the other is to write about
rich people for Architectural Digest. So I’ve been going
back and forth between these two worlds for a long time. I didn’t
see the connection at first.
RB: Besides Frans de Waal, who is a primotologist
who blurbed your book, what do scientists say about your book?
| I
like to think of this book as Life Styles of the Rich and
Famous meets Chimpanzee Politics. |
RC: Frans de Waal is a pretty damn good primotologist
and he wrote a book called Chimpanzee Politics. I like to
think of this book as Life Styles of the Rich and Famous meets
Chimpanzee Politics. Any scientist would say that this is
over-the-top natural history. It’s intentionally over the top,
it’s done with tongue in cheek, but it is still real science.
And then I extrapolate from the real science. They like it [scientists],
they laugh at it, and they couldn’t put their names on it and
they are usually delighted that I do.
RB: Is evolutionary psychology a serious
field of study?
RC: The famous book is by David Buss, The
Evolution of Desire. He wrote back in the ’60’s and
‘70s. Evolutionary psychology only got going in the ‘90s.
What it does is look at our behaviors in terms of our entire evolution,
going back to who we were as primates, when we were in the same
family as the chimpanzees, the same lineage as the monkeys. And
then it looks at how those behaviors still affect what we do in
the present day.
RB: Why isn’t this a province of political
science and economics?
RC: Evolutionary psychology doesn’t
say who is going to be in what position in the social hierarchy.
Because we are primates and the one big thing that primates do is
social hierarchy, it’s for primates the equivalent of celestial
navigation for arctic terns. It’s the defining trait. We are
social, we have social hierarchies. In any situation, when any 2
people get together or any 10 people, there is going to be a hierarchy
in that room. One thing that is interesting about humans is that
we go from one role to the other pretty damn quickly. So that guy
who is the abusive CEO of some Fortune 500 company still has to
go to Greenwich Country Day School and answer for his kid who is
misbehaving. So, we vary our roles much more than they do in the
animal world.
RB: In the theorizing that comes from this
research, isn’t the next step as you look at primate’s
trait of hierarchical behavior that you recognize the codification
of that behavior and ultimately—except for some Dutch East
Indies tribes—every human society has what we call a class
structure or caste system?
RC: Yes, it does become codified. What interests
me is what rich families do to maintain their place in the hierarchy
over generations.
RB: As in the inbreeding of families like
the Rothchilds?
RC: One of the reasons they inbreed is to
prevent their wealth from being divided among too many descendents.
So it keeps it concentrated and because it’s concentrated that
family retains power.
RB: What happened to the alleged deleterious
effects of marrying first cousins?
 RC:
Inbreeding is a funny thing. It’s associated with …
RB: Bad German shepherds…
RC: Well yeah. Bad German shepherds with
hip dysplasia and swamp-dwelling people from the backwoods somewhere.
If you look at human marriages over history probably 80% of all
marriages were between second cousins. You confined in your courtship
to how far you could walk in a day. Basically, it meant you were
marrying people from your family, however distantly. So inbreeding
is a lot more common than you think. And deliberate inbreeding as
a tactic among the rich is really, really common.
RB: I was enthralled by the number you toss
out about our resemblance to chimpanzees.
RC: We are 98.4% genetically identical to
chimpanzees. And you can interpret that in all kinds of ways. The
usual way it gets interpreted is to say therefore our behavior is
pretty much chimpanzee behavior. That’s not a fair thing to
say. A 1.6% difference in the genome can express itself in huge
biological differences between species. So yeah, we do a lot of
things like chimpanzees and we do a lot of things that would send
chimpanzees screaming for the chandeliers and out the window.
RB: I noted you present Charlemagne as the
progenitor of half of Europe at a certain point.
RC: Yes, that’s right. One of the points
I make in the book is that we are all descended from the rich. The
big thing about Darwinism is that we are all descended from monkeys
and that is the big scandal about Darwinism. But the truth is that
we are also descended from powerful individuals who have parleyed
their economic and social status into breeding opportunities. Kings
are notorious for having many mistresses and many illegitimate offspring.
In fact, there is a society of illegitimate offspring called the
Royal Bastards. There are a lot of people who are descendants of
royal bastards. When you go back to someone like Charlemagne, you
have all that time for it to spread out into the larger population.
He had 4 wives and 5 concubines. He’s has a hell of a lot of
descendants in modern Europe.
RB: Where do you think the derogatory meaning
of ‘bastard’ comes from?
RC: I’ve being wondering about that
lately. I have been using this term ‘royal bastard’ and
it’s such a standard thing that I wonder if it didn’t
originate in the behavior of the illegitimate offspring of Charles
II or some other king, Louis IVX—who knew that he was royal,
at least by blood and didn’t have the title and the power and
therefore had to be arrogant in his behavior.
RB: Did you see the film Rob Roy?
RC: I never did.
RB: It’s unremarkable except for a splendid
performance by Tim Roth, in which, I recall, he was a bastard and
he was incredibly arrogant, greedy, dismissive, insensitive and
without any inhibitions and he would seem to be an exemplar of the
bastard personality. Anyway, there was a place in your book where
you mentioned that wealthy Texan families bought breast enlargement
operations for their teenage daughters. You suggested it was like
buying fast cars for their sons.
RC: Yes, they do both.
RB: Right, but it’s not the same thing.
| Subordinates
in the animal world and in the human world tend to think that
the alpha knows best and they imitate the alpha. |
RC: What they are buying their kids in both
cases is forms of sexual display. Why do you say it’s not?
RB: There’s something really invasive
about surgical alteration of a young girl's sexual characteristics.
I remember when parents bought their daughters nose jobs…but
it wasn’t so brazenly sexual.
RC: It may be that what the parents are up
to here is not enhancing their daughter’s sexuality but their
marriagability.
RB: Why don’t they just tattoo her net
worth on her?
RC: That wouldn’t have quite the same
effect.
RB: Let’s talk a little about methodology.
You mention that you rented a $1200 a day Ferrari with a $10,000
deductible. Apparently, that didn’t impress anyone.
RC: Right, it was the kind of car they give
to high school kids.
RB: What did you wear? Did you rent a Patek
Phillipe watch?
RC: No. One of the things that’s interesting
in biology is that all animals scrutinize other animals and look
for cheating, to see if they are what they pretend to be. I realized
that after I did that Ferrari thing that there was no point in pretending
that I was rich. I wasn’t going to fool anybody. I don’t
go to the same places they do. I don’t buy from the same art
dealers. I don’t have the same paintings hanging on my walls.
I decided early on that I would just tell people what I was up to.
RB: How many people were receptive to that?
RC: A lot of people were happy to talk to
me when I was representing Architectural Digest or National
Geographic. When I told people I wanted to liken their behavior
to animals a lot of people resisted and took a pass on it. I think
that’s perfectly understandable. The Hollywood producer Peter
Guber, who made Batman and various other films—I had
worked for him previously on a documentary called The Primal
Human Connection—he was happy to talk. Other people liked
the idea and were happy to talk about other people that they knew,
they just weren’t so comfortable when you applied it to them.
I visited Hugh Hefner. He hemmed and hawed a bit and he’s pretty
frank about a lot of things—obviously about his sex life. I
asked about things that he found unfamiliar and surprising and then
afterwards when he had finished his assistants all came up to me
and said, “That’s exactly what happens here.” They
were talking about people sitting below him and nodding to him as
he spoke, in this subservient way. In Red Deer, you usually have
a dominant male who has a harem and then some satellite males who
hang around on the side and they pick off females when they can.
British biologists refer to them as “sneaky fuckers.”
That behavior goes on at the Playboy Mansion. He attracts all the
women there and then there are the males off to the sides, getting
what they could.
RB: So we extrapolate human behavior from
that particular situation?
RC: Clearly, Hugh Hefner and the Playboy
Mansion is a bizarre and exceptional case. But the fact is when
you have somebody who is well known as a wealthy individual, women
are going to gather around and men are going to gather around as
a result of that. In Monacco, Prince Albert would show up at a disco
called Jimmyz. There would be a lot of princess wannabes and as
result there were all these pretend princes. There was this one
table of 5 guys and they had one Rolls Royce among and they would
rotate its use from night to night.
RB: At the end of your book you have a group
of guidelines for dealing with being rich.
RC: The first one is essentially the 3 big
lies. They all say that "money doesn’t mean anything to
me and I'm not interested in power or impressing other people."
In fact these are the things that interest them most intensely.
Their whole lives are devoted to the money and power and everybody
gives a damn about impressing other people. The question is who
do you impress or try to impress. Rich people target their efforts
a little more narrowly, towards other rich people usually.
RB: You cite an example of a Czech national
who comes to Aspen and buys a fabulous house, spends oodles of money
and throws an over-the-top party and then scams a lot of people
to his own net profit of $100 million. Do the people he scammed
think he is a scam artist?
RC: They know he is a scam artist. They are
suing him.
RB: Isn’t what he did within the boundaries
of high-flying business dealings and the kind of thing they would
do?
RC: Yes. In fact, they knew he was a scam
artist at the time because there had been an article in Fortune
a year earlier describing how he deceived investors in an other
country. There’s a quote, “They knew he was a pirate but
they thought he would be their pirate.” And it turns out he
was just a pirate.
RB: So it wasn’t his practices that
concerned them, it’s who his victims were?
 RC:
Let’s be honest, we don’t mind Dennis Kozlowski scamming
as long as Tyco’s stock is going through the roof.
RB: I mind. Maybe it’s because I am
one of the disappearing few in America who has no stock portfolio.
RC: I think people were willing to let guys
like Kozlowski get away with gross excesses because they thought,
“This guy has increased my net worth.”
RB: That’s assuming they knew about
the so-called gross excesses. $500 waste baskets…$15,000 antique
toilets…
RC: You’re right. When you are talking
about alleged illegalities they wouldn’t have known. A better
example is Jack Welch. What he did was not illegal but it certainly
was extravagant. He was also a guy who had massively increased the
value of that company over time. People thought, “It’s
a little extreme but he earned it.”
RB: Jack Welch’s severance package was
taken back.
RC: He had to give up part of his package
because he was so embarrassed to have it be on the front page of
the New York Times.
RB: He was embarrassed (laughs)? How do you
embarrass guys like that?
RC: You wonder because they act as if they
have no shame.
RB: They act as they have no contact with
the real world.
RC: And they don’t. They try to avoid
it. One of the things that the rich do that makes them into a cultural
subspecies in my terminology is that they go off to places like
Aspen where they are isolated from everyone else. They have this
little social hierarchy where they can compare themselves only with
one another. So a guy who only has 900 million bucks thinks he’s
poor, all of a sudden. He’ll say, “What did I do wrong?
These guys have 3 or 4 billion.” That’s called relative
depravation. It’s completely unreal.
| One
of the things that the rich do that makes them into a cultural
subspecies in my terminology is that they go off to places
like Aspen where they are isolated from everyone else. They
have this little social hierarchy where they can compare themselves
only with one another. |
RB: Those are unspendable amounts of money.
What can you spend that much money on?
RC: Ted Turner is doing great things with
his money. He is spending it on vaccines and medical care through
the UN.
RB: After he made that magnanimous gesture
of the $1 billion gift I thought it was clear that he was not giving
it away a cash gift.
RC: It was a brilliant PR stunt. What was
lost was that it was $100 million over 10 years. That’s a lot
different. That gesture was really effective. He not only announced
it and it seemed really selfless and at the same time, he made jibs
at his other moneybags rivals. He named Gates specifically. Gates
was embarrassed to be made out a cheap skate. So almost a year to
the date later, Gates gave his first billion and then went on to
give 23 billion more. I suggest in the book that Turner’s strategy
was that he wanted to induce Gates to give away a third of his fortune
to close the gap between them. That may be unduly cynical.
RB: This is perhaps an inelegant phrasing
of this question. Is there any evidence that rich people are smarter?
Are their SAT scores higher?
RC: No one has researched that, that I know
of, and I am quite sure it would tell you nothing. They are not
smarter than the rest of us. We tend to assume that they are smarter.
Subordinates in the animal world and in the human world tend to
think that the alpha knows best and they imitate the alpha. Frans
de Waal, the primotologist, tells of an alpha chimpanzee who injures
his hand and he has to walk around on his wrist for a couple of
days. All of a sudden all the betas in the troop start walking around
on their wrists. It’s ridiculous and you think. “We would
never do that, we’re too smart.” But then if you wear
a three-piece suit, you always wear the bottom button unbuttoned
on the vest. The reason for that is that we are imitating King Edward
VII of England who was too fat to button his button. So, we imitate
alphas too.
RB: It does seem to be a cultural bias not
necessarily an anthropological one, that we assume the Ted Turners
and Bill Gates are exceedingly smart. There is much more evidence
for the confluence of luck, shrewdness, opportunity and occasionally
intelligence.
RC: Real boldness is what I think is characteristic.
Ted Turner had CNN. When I talked to him in 1980, nobody had heard
of cable television, nobody had it in their homes. He was going
to start this 24 hour all-news cable television station. And it
was really a wild idea. It wasn’t his idea either (it was Gerald
Levin’s). Turner had this monomaniacal obsession to get what
he wanted and do things the way he wanted. That indifference to
consequences, that kind of boldness, is also characteristic to alphas
in the animal world. Alpha chimps, for instance.
RB: The positive aspects that we ascribe
the wealthy flies in the face of our egalitarian values. We don’t
really believe everyone has a chance at the great riches of a Turner
or Trump.
RC: Ted Turner actually started pretty well
off. His dad had a pretty good billboard business. Donald Trump
started out rich. Bill Gates came from an upper middle class family.
RB: Who’s a rags-to-riches story in
last 30 years?
RC: Larry Ellison [of Oracle]. His dad was
a school teacher.
RB: Not exactly rags.
RC: I don’t think he had a great family
history when he was young. There wasn’t a whole lot of money
there. The guy was just driven, he was monomaniacal and got quite
a ways.
RB: The deposed head of Sunbeam, “Chainsaw”
Al Dunlop…
RC: I don’t know where he started. I
know how he finished. Aggressive dominance only gets you so far,
other people turn it on you. That’s what happened to him.
RB: Whether or not this is good science,
do you see your analysis of the wealthy—as well as other human
behavior—becoming part of the popular dialogue?
 RC:
It’s really intriguing to see how all of our behaviors are
shaped by our evolutionary origins.
RB: But we don’t. It seems to be a part
of our lives that is speeding by so quickly that we lose those moments
for rumination seem not part of the mix.
RC: So that means we are going on basic animal
instinct now.
RB: That, of course, suggests the truth of
your observations. You talk about these behaviors as tendencies
not imperatives.
RC: There are people who conform to these
patterns and some who reject them. Some rich guys have lots of girlfriends,
some have been married for 30 years.
RB: What’s the benchmark of wealth?
RC: 5 to 10 million in investable net worth.
Money you can spend. Money you can buy a second home with. That’s
where banks and university fund raisers start to get interested
in you.
RB: Is this your first book?
RC: No, it’s my sixth book, I think.
RB: Why are they not listed on the dust jacket?
RC: Maybe because those books seem so completely
remote from this book. One of them was called Spineless Wonders:
Strange Tales from the Invertebrate World. Another was called
Every Creeping Thing: True Tales of Faintly Repulsive Wildlife.
They are not like this. Well, they are like this, in a way. They
are all science with a humorous touch. And they are about animal
behavior.
RB: Have you exhausted this topic of the
behavior of the rich?
RC: No I keep thinking of things that I forgot
to put in the book. One thing I didn’t emphasize enough is
that the difference between old money and new money is completely
overrated. They are both interested in display. It’s a matter
of how they choose to display. Old money learned you could do it
better by inconspicuous consumption.
| A
rich person really only wants to impress other rich people.
Nobody else counts. |
RB: Do you have an example?
RC: I mention Hollywood agent Alan Grubman.
When he got rich in the ‘80s, the first thing he did was buy
a Rolls Royce. Really a tacky thing to do in Hollywood. He drove
it around and he felt great about himself because he wanted the
world to know that he was rich. Then David Geffen steps in and says,
“Alan, would you please get rid of that car?” In Hollywood,
Geffen is old money even though he made his in 1975. What Geffen
was saying to him was that the Rolls was ostentatious and the other
thing that was wrong with it was that it was intended to impress
the whole world. A rich person really only wants to impress other
rich people. Nobody else counts. Geffen knew that and Grubman figured
it out.
RB: The Rolls Royce is a very fine car. It’s
not possible that he wanted it because it was fine car?
RC: No, he wanted a Rolls to show off. Then
there are guys like Jeff Katzenberg, who drives a beat up old Jeep
Cherokee.
RB: Have you not run across people who think
$5000 suits and so on is a bit much? Are there rich people who think
that’s shameful, no matter how much money you have?
RC: Yes, that’s old money. They try
to be quiet about it and they try to dress like other people and
drive cars like other people and not stand out. And that’s
inconspicuous display. Those same people usually let on somehow
who they are. They may not let everybody know but they let the girlfriend
or the wife know about the big contribution that they made. So there
is still display going on. Inevitably, when someone makes a philanthropic
gesture, they let somebody know. It may be there’s a wealthy
family. Maybe it’s the second or third generation and the brothers
and sisters are sitting around a conference room deciding how to
give the money. They are only displaying for one another. But display
between siblings can be a very important thing in terms of status.
RB: Are you intending to write another book?
RC: About the rich? I don’t know. Where
else would I go? There are fun things I would have done that I didn’t
get to do. I may still do them. (long pause) The one regret that
I have is that if people understood what the book was about and
understood this natural history perspective a little less defensively
then I would have had more access. That would have been more revealing.
A lot of times what I got, I got talking to housekeepers and party
planners, interior designers because the rich people were a little
nervous.
RB: I bought your introduction where you
said that if you bit the hand that fed you it was a mere flea bite…
RC: Not the bubonic plague.
RB: Tell me about the people you describe
as having the service heart.
RC: It’s a large group of people. They
give up their own lives. They often have no children. Really they
identify their whole lives with this person [their employer]. The
fact that they give up their own reproduction is really impressive.
Let’s say they meet someone in a bar and they say who they
are and what they do—then all of a sudden that person is only
interested in their rich boss. So they can’t really tell people
what they do.
RB: And the trickle-down effect of wealth
consumers? You mentioned that Czech in Aspen who flew in some fruit
he wanted for juice.
RC: Yeah he flew in Passionfruit. It’s
great stuff, but it was costing $120 to bring in case of it. Out
of one case he would get 8 ounces of juice for his breakfast everyday.
RB: And the story of Elvis and a certain
sandwich?
RC: I talked to the pilot. Elvis flew his
friends from Memphis to Denver and back again the same night using
5500 gallons of fuel. What they were looking for was a sandwich
consisting of a loaf split open, slathered with peanut butter and
jelly and a whole pound of bacon. In one damn sandwich!
RB: Is there trickle down here?
RC: Sure, there’s financial and prestige
trickledown.
RB: In the way that Reagan economists claimed?
RC: They meant the money spent on yachts
was going to be a great boon to the yacht builders and dock workers
and so on.
RB: And urban kids.
RC: Urban kids, sure. That’s kind of
different. That doesn’t justify a $6000 shower curtain but
some people benefit.
RB: Oh yeah. I see that. Cohiba cigars go
for $20 or $30 in this country and the cigar roller in Havana or
Santa Domingo might have made 50 cents. I guess that’s trickle
down.
RC: There is that Galbraith quote about feeding
enough oats to the horse where it eventually passes to the road
where the sparrows feed.
RB: You do note that the rich are savvy enough
to contribute to both parties but you don’t document any political
agenda for their class?
RC: One of the things that the rich always
say is that money doesn’t interest them. What they mean is
that the money gets you in the door but it doesn’t impress
anybody. So what they are looking to do is to parlay that money
into status and power. Politics is an obvious way to do that. The
Kennedys are a classic case of that. The other reason I didn’t
get into politics much is that to do a natural history of the rich
implies that rich people are the only alphas. In fact, there are
other alphas. It diffused the focus of the book to go into political
power. Bill Clinton was certainly an alpha when all he had was a
lot of legal debts and too many girlfriends. He wasn’t rich.
By and large, money and power and prestige coincide so that talking
about a natural history of the rich and suggesting that that’s
where the alphas really are is legitimate.
Robert Birnbaum came to journalism, where
he has been a practitioner for the past two decades, from a series
of possibly (it's too soon to tell) educational vocational experiences
that are too numerous to mention. In the '80s and '90s, as publisher/creative
director of STUFF magazine in Boston, when he wasn't attending industrial
gatherings, he interviewed nearly 500 hundred writers — from
Martin Amis and Isabel Allende to Marianne Wiggins and Howard Zinn
— and read almost 1000 books. He is currently, among other
things, pondering if there is a place for him in a profession increasingly
infested with vulgarians who believe 'editorial content' is celebrating
restaurant and shop openings, endlessly lionizing the same small
group of celebrities and reiterating the press releases of the publicists
they have just had lunch with. He lives with his Labrador retriever
Rosie and helps parent his young son Cuba Maxwell.
Note:
Featured author in November 2000
E-mail: reddiaz@aol.com
Writing interests: Interviews, Photography
Author interviews: Dorothy
Allison, Nicholson
Baker, Julian
Barnes, Andrea
Barrett, Alex
Beam, Jill
Bialosky, Amy
Bloom, Amy
Bloom 2002, Alain
de Botton, Arthur Bradford,
Ethan Canin, Stephen
Carter, Sandra
Cisneros, Michael
Connelly, Richard
Conniff, Frank
Conroy, Mark
Costello, Elizabeth
Cox, Jim Crace, Nicholas
Dawidoff, Andre
Dubus III, John
Dufresne, Tony Earley,
Barbara Ehrenreich, Gretel
Ehrlich, James
Ellroy, Richard
Ford, Alan
Furst, Alan
Furst 2002, Anthony
Giardina, James
Gleick, Adam
Gopnik, Allan Gurganus,
Barbara
Haber, David
Hadju, Ethan
Hawke, Christopher Hitchens
#1, Christopher
Hitchens #2, Gabe
Hudson, Elizabeth
Inness-Brown, Ben Katchor,
Nora
Okja Keller, Chip Kidd,
Anthony
Lane, Annette
Lemieux, Alan
Lightman, Paul Lussier,
Ruben Martinez, Daniel
Mason, Thomas
McGuane, Thisbe Nissen,
Tim
O'Brien, Susan
Orlean, Ann
Packer, Arthur
Phillips, Samantha
Power, Christopher
Rice, David
Rieff, Hazel
Rowley, Richard Russo #1,
Richard
Russo #2, John
Sedgwick, David
Shields, Ilan
Stavans, Darin
Strauss, Manil
Suri, Nick
Tosches, Brady
Udall, Sarah
Vowell, Brad
Watson, W.D. Wetherell,
Mark
Winegardner, Howard
Zinn
Author portraits: John
Sayles, Howard
Zinn, Robert
Stone, Ana
Castillo, John
Waters, Allen
Ginsberg, Carl
Hiaasen, Carlos
Fuentes, Barbara
Ehrenreich, Eduardo
Galeano, Isabel
Allende, Junot
Diaz, Joan
Didion, James
Ellroy, John
Edgar Wideman, Martin
Amis, Michael
Ondaatje, Richard
Price, Rigoberta
Menchu, Louis
de Bernieres, Studs
Terkel
Photography: "I
am the Son of my Son"
Journal: "A
Reader's Progress"
Link: Review
of Cuba: A Traveler's Literary Companion at Hyde Park Review
of Books
|
