The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Landslide
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
WE ARE OPEN - WEEK THIRTEEN - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: LANDSLIDE - February 23rd - March 1st - Epilogue - No Spoilers, Please
Mod
However if we discuss folks outside the scope of the book or another book is cited which is not the book and author discussed then we do have to do that citation according to our citation rules. That makes it easier to not disrupt the discussion.
Mod
For the week of February 23rd-March 1st we are reading the Epilogue of Landslide
The thirteenth week’s reading assignment is:
Week Thirteen-February 23 - March 1
Epilogue-pages 349-368
Chapter Overview and Summary
Reagan is sworn in as governor of California. He gives no hint to reporters about his own ambition to win the Republicans’ presidential nomination. He continues to critique the Johnson administration. Vietnam continues to take a toll on the Johnson administration’s image and agendas. Johnson publicly declines nomination for another term. The deaths of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy take a toll on the nation. Richard Nixon is elected president in 1968, Reagan in 1980. Reagan wins on a platform that repudiates many policies championed by such liberals as Johnson. Johnson dies in 1973.
Mod
Mod
Mod
Author and journalist Jonathan Darman joins Morning Joe to discuss his new book "Landslide:
Morning Joe:
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watc...
message 7:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Feb 22, 2015 09:42PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
http://www.c-span.org/video/?322205-5...
"...the Tet Offensive, deeply damaged morale on the American home front, underscoring the hollowness of the administration's claims of improving fortunes in the conflict." Tet was one of the prime indicators of how much power TV had in the American culture. Many of these battles while being conducted well and resulting in American and S. Vietnamese Army victories were literally broadcast and reported the same day in America. I have read accounts by ground commanders who served in Vietnam who claimed that they were making progress prior to Tet. Tet served the purpose that the North Vietnamese and the NVA desired, it killed morale on the home front and it sucked the air out of many of the commands in country that had not expected it. However, this is war. Surprise is every commanders goal.What might have happened if the battle of the bulge would have been broadcast in living rooms the day of or day after the fighting rather than weeks later in a theater news reel?
This brings me back to the Gulf of Tonkin incident we read about and discussed earlier. We easily could have retaliated with bombing missions and backed off with honor. Once boots were on the ground we were already over committed.
Couple all of this with the idea that a body count could be the measure of victory or success and major tactical mistakes were made. I believe we have made some of the same mistakes again in current events...
McNamara? I have to do some more reading about him. I have only secondary knowledge from reading about Vietnam and now Landslide. What were his qualifications as Defense Secretary? Did he have a military background or was he just a number cruncher? Can some other members help me out with a small amount of background on him or good biography suggestions? I am open to a PM response if that is more appropriate.
I am struck by the sheer force of events in this time period...Tet, Assasination of King and B. Kennedy, Riots in the streets, Guardsmen firing on protestors... I feel deeply grateful that the nation was able to weather this turmoil.
message 11:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Feb 22, 2015 09:58PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Jonathan Darman writes:
"Ronald Reagan was sworn in as governor of California shortly after midnight on January 2, 1967, in the rotunda of the state's capitol building. Already, however, in his mind was drawn to an even higher office. With Reagan's blessing, Clif White and Tom Reed had developed a detailed campaign timeline for the coming year, leading up to the Republican convention in the summer of 1968. There, Reagan hoped to win his party's nomination and challenge Johnson for the presidency.
Throughout his year year as governor, Reagan declared himself focused on his substantial duties in Sacramento, too busy to consider a run for the presidency. But reporters noted that he never offered an outright refusal to run in 1968. Press interest in a Reagan candidacy grew steadiy, thanks in part to not-so-subtle encouragement from Reagan himself. At a meeting of the nation's governors aboard the SS Independence in October 1967, a tanned and smiling Reagan appeared before the national press. "Governor Rockefeller of New York said yesterday that he does not want to be president," said one reporter. "Do you want to be president?" Reagan laughed and paused. "Well" he said, "there's one carry-over I have from my previous occupation: I never take the other fellow's lines."
1. Your thoughts about the epilogue.
Mod
The truth is that no battle was lost - but the real truth is "public opinion" and confidence and I think that was deflated in this campaign.
message 13:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Feb 22, 2015 10:10PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
by Robert S. McNamara (no photo)Synopsis:
The #1 national bestseller--an indispensable document for anyone interested in the Vietnam War. McNamara's controversial book tells the inside and personal story of America's descent into Vietnam from a unique point of view, and is one of the most enlightening books about government ever written. This new edition features a new Foreword by McNamara. of photos. (Military History)
Robert S. McNamara Biography
Government Official, Military Leader (1916–2009)
QUICK FACTS
NAME
Robert S. McNamara
OCCUPATION
Government Official, Military Leader
BIRTH DATE
June 9, 1916
DEATH DATE
July 6, 2009
EDUCATION
Harvard Business School, University of California, Berkeley
PLACE OF BIRTH
San Francisco, California
PLACE OF DEATH
Washington, D.C.
AKA
Robert S. McNamara
Robert McNamara
FULL NAME
Robert Strange McNamara
Robert S. McNamara was an American business executive and the eighth U.S. secretary of defense, serving under presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. He is best known for helping lead the United States into the Vietnam War during the Kennedy Administration, an act for which he spent the remainder of his life wrestling with the moral consequences.
Early Life
Former U.S. secretary of state, author and businessman Robert Strange McNamara was born on June 9, 1916, in San Francisco, California. McNamara is best known as the secretary of defense in the 1960s and as an important figure in the controversial Vietnam War. In 1937, he graduated with a degree in economics from the University of California in Berkeley. An excellent student, McNamara went to study at Harvard Business School where he earned his master's degree in 1939.
After a short stint on the West Coast, McNamara was back at Harvard as an assistant professor. He took a break from the university to help out his country during World War II. In 1943, McNamara entered the U.S. Army Air Corps, putting his sharp analytical skills and talent for statistics to work on military situations. Not long after the war, he and nine other members from the army's statistical control group went to work for Henry Ford II at the Ford Motor Company.
Secretary of Defense
Ford hired this group of bright young men—sometimes referred to as "Whiz Kids"—to help reinvigorate his family's company, which was going through difficult times. Over the years, Robert S. McNamara promoted numerous times and advocated for such changes as making small cars and increasing safety. He also became known as a gifted, innovative manager with strong organizational abilities. In 1960, McNamara became the first non-Ford family member to hold the position of president. He did not stay in the job for long, however. President John F. Kennedy tapped him to become his secretary of defense, looking to him to reorganize the country's defense program. McNamara officially took over the post in January 1961.
Set on improving how the Pentagon operated, McNamara helped establish planning and budgeting systems. To revitalize the military, he emphasized the need for traditional troops and military hardware as well as improved weapons systems. The country had to be prepared for conventional and unconventional warfare, including guerilla warfare.
As secretary of defense, McNamara faced many challenges, including 1962's Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the country to brink of war with the Soviet Union. But perhaps his most complicated crisis was the conflict in Vietnam. During the Kennedy Administration, he supported increasing the number of U.S. military advisers in Vietnam.
Vietnam War
Later, during the Johnson Administration, McNamara backed the escalation of U.S. involvement after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, during which U.S. ships were allegedly attacked by the communist North Vietnamese. President Lyndon B. Johnson retaliated with air strikes against the northern targets. Supporting the North Vietnamese was the Viet Cong, a militant communist group that opposed the U.S.-backed government in South Vietnam. Employing guerilla warfare tactics, the group began engaging in more military actions in 1965. In response, the United States advanced the conflict in Vietnam by the use of extensive bombing in the north and by deploying troops in the south.
Considered to be one of the major strategists behind the war, McNamara was reviled by many in the peace movement. Some were also critical of the information he conveyed about the situation in Vietnam. McNamara visited Vietnam several times during his tenure as secretary of defense. And during a later visit, he reportedly began to develop reservations as to whether the United States would be able to secure a victory over the communists.
In 1967, McNamara ordered a study of the U.S. role in Indochina, which was later leaked to the press and published as The Pentagon Papers. The study covered from World War II to 1968 and contained many revelations about the extent of U.S. involvement in Vietnam during several administrations dating back to Harry S. Truman. One notable discovery was that Johnson had U.S. forces engage in covert warfare against the North Vietnamese in 1964.
Criticism
By 1968, McNamara had become disillusioned about the Vietnam War. Looking to take his life in a new direction, he resigned his position. Clark M. Clifford took over as secretary of defense while McNamara focused on helping developing countries as president of the World Bank. During his 13 years with the bank, he oversaw the expansion of its lending capabilities as well as numerous projects in borrowing nations.
Since retiring in 1981, McNamara has remained active in many areas of public affairs, including world poverty and nuclear policy. He has written several books, most notably In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam (1995). In it, McNamara stated that he had sought to get the United States to withdraw from Vietnam beginning in 1966. According to the book, he was at odds with President Johnson over this issue. McNamara wrote: "I do not know to this day, whether I quit or was fired." Written with Brian VanDeMark, the controversial book was a best-seller. While some found the book to be genuine and touching, others thought it was simply a way for him to relieve some of his guilt over his role in the Vietnam War.
Later Years
In 2003, McNamara was once again in the spotlight with the release of the critically acclaimed documentary, The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons of Robert S. McNamara. Most of the documentary featured interviews with McNamara, providing some rationale for actions taken in Vietnam as well as insight into their flaws.
The following year, McNamara started a new chapter in his personal life. He married Diana Masieri Byfield in September 2004. This was his second marriage; he was married to his first wife, Margaret Craig, from 1947 until her death in 1981. McNamara died on July 6, 2009, in Washington, D.C., from natural causes. He was 93 years old. He was survived by Byfield, as well as a son and two daughters from his first marriage.
Mod
For sure.
Bentley wrote: "Michael wrote: ""...the Tet Offensive, deeply damaged morale on the American home front, underscoring the hollowness of the administration's claims of improving fortunes in the conflict." Tet was..."With all due respect, two points: North Vietnam and its supporters had so infiltrated the south even before US troops landed that they could not be forced out. In other words, South Vietnam could not fulfill the first requirement of a nation, it could not defend its borders. There were no borders.
Secondly, the war in Vietnam was not a war about winning battles, body counts, or any of the other traditional measurments of success in that pursuit of failure we call war. As the N Vietnamese general Giap told Kissinger, the north could lose 10 men to one for the US and still win the war. And, if what I've read is correct, that's exactly what the ratio was at the end.
I think the epilogue is (in part) the author's attempt to tie together Reagan and Johnson - but I don't think it quite works. Yes, Reagan won a big victory as Governor of CA, but it was to be a long time before he became President of the USA. And the presidents who came between Johnson and Reagan were not in the Reagan mold (nor the Johnson mold).
Martin, I understand your points and please do not get me wrong; I did not say I thought it was winnable only that some ground commanders whose stuff I have read believed it was winnable prior to Tet. Also, that I think the fact that Tet was on TV almost as it happened gave it far more impact than had people had to wait to hear about it. This meant that Johnson very quickly had to address the situation where prior presidents FDR for example had time to react themselves and then address the people. Vietnam was a bad event unfortunately we did not hold leaders responsible for it as accountable as we should have and we treated the boys that went, most because of the draft not because of free will, unfairly.
Mod
OK Martin. We get your views on Vietnam. Allow Michael to state his.
I agree Michael. And, it wasn't just some ground commanders who believed the war was "winnable." That was the problem with our leaders.They let their quintessential American quality that the country could reinvent any part of the world in its image without regard to History blind them to what our intelligence community knew at the time.
Mod
Thank you Peter - the epilogue. I think Darman does show that California was a proving ground of sorts for the Reagan brand of politics. But I understand your point of view.
Mod
The Vietnam vets were treated unfairly. Very true.
By those who sent them and by many at home upon their return.
message 23:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Feb 23, 2015 06:49AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I would like to talk about the epilogue.
Peter wrote: "I think the epilogue is (in part) the author's attempt to tie together Reagan and Johnson - but I don't think it quite works. Yes, Reagan won a big victory as Governor of CA, but it was to be a lon..."I agree that Darman didn't quite tie LBJ and Reagan together. He did capture the chaos of the era immediately after LBJ's declining the nomination and since.
Mod
Mod
Jonathan Darman writes:
"Ronald Reagan was sworn in as governor of California shortly after midnight on January 2, 1967, in the rotunda of the state's capitol building. Already, however, in his mind was drawn to an even higher office. With Reagan's blessing, Clif White and Tom Reed had developed a detailed campaign timeline for the coming year, leading up to the Republican convention in the summer of 1968. There, Reagan hoped to win his party's nomination and challenge Johnson for the presidency.
Throughout his year year as governor, Reagan declared himself focused on his substantial duties in Sacramento, too busy to consider a run for the presidency. But reporters noted that he never offered an outright refusal to run in 1968. Press interest in a Reagan candidacy grew steadiy, thanks in part to not-so-subtle encouragement from Reagan himself. At a meeting of the nation's governors aboard the SS Independence in October 1967, a tanned and smiling Reagan appeared before the national press. "Governor Rockefeller of New York said yesterday that he does not want to be president," said one reporter. "Do you want to be president?" Reagan laughed and paused. "Well" he said, "there's one carry-over I have from my previous occupation: I never take the other fellow's lines."
1. Your thoughts about the epilogue.
I thought our author did some nice tying of things together in these two sections. Certainly not everything comes together as I was hoping, but an enjoyable read -- and my admiration for Lady Bird has definitely increased.
Kathy wrote: "I thought our author did some nice tying of things together in these two sections. Certainly not everything comes together as I was hoping, but an enjoyable read -- and my admiration for Lady Bird ..."I thought he tied some things together, also. I was actually wanting more (or maybe just didn't want the book to end.
Vietnam became a rapidly out of control cancer that LBJ allowed himself to succumb to...(page 353). I wonder how other presidents might have dealt with...and possibly overcome...the huge negative media reporting about the war...FDR, JFK, RR...
I wonder if the Dems would have done better in 1968 with only LBJ running instead of two different candidates pulling them in different directions...(page 356).
America seemed to have lost its way during the Carter years, and of course this was the perfect stage for RR to capitalize on...(page 360). I remember well those days of double digit inflation, frustration and impasse over Iran, and a negative feeling about ourselves. The perfect setting for a hero on a white horse...
Lewis-I'm not sure LBJ could win, but if he did run, I'm not sure he could unify the party. It was one of the most fractious period for the Democratic Party, its legacy still survives today.But Nixon just barely won in 1968 that lead him to a path to try for a mandate in 1972...leading to some really bad decisions.
I agree with you and Francie. I didn't see everything tied together completely.I really liked reading about Lady Bird, too. I wish he would have mentioned a bit more about Nancy so we could see the comparison/contrast between the two ladies with their husbands.
I do really feel like this was a book about LBJ and that he really wanted to show some kind of comparison with Reagan's landslide, but I didn't think it came together in that aspect very well.
I did still enjoy reading about both men and have a better appreciation for what LBJ accomplished on Civil Rights and I maybe see Reagan in a different light as well.
Kathy wrote: "I thought our author did some nice tying of things together in these two sections. Certainly not everything comes together as I was hoping, but an enjoyable read -- and my admiration for Lady Bird ..."
Mrs. LBJ certainly seemed to have the backbone and balance that were needed as a support for LBJ (page 366). I wonder if her role was appreciated at the time, or was the spotlight not so much on First Ladies then as it has been in more recent times?
Interesting comments on timing for RR and LBJ on page 367. Did the fall of the USSR take the focus off of the Iran-Contra scandal, or was RR able to spin or charm his way out of it? I do remember Vietnam being a very heavy "cancer" that hung over the whole country during LBJ's time, while the Contra business seemed more to be a small side show under RR. I'm sure it helped people to forget about it because thousands of our boys were not being killed on a regular basis there (Nicaragua) saw as the case with Vietnam.
It almost seems comical (There's probably a better word to describe it...) that so many were taken in by RR's preaching against big government (pages 369 & 372) when in fact he produced exactly the opposite. Makes one wonder...will we be taken in by anyone who speaks against government, or was is also largely due to Carter's unpopular term, or was it just RR's good communication skills that made him hard to dislike for many folks...
The discussion about Clinton (page 371) makes for fascinating reading and speculation... It's certainly easier (and more interesting) looking back on the big picture after a president has been out of office for a while. Wonder how Bush Jr. and Obama will be judged in 10+ years... Anyone want to write a book comparing their terms in office so that we can discuss it one day? (assuming we're all still around...)
Page 374: "...little faith in government..."Page 375: "...people no longer believe..."
Are these current perceptions really due to LBJ and RR? I'm not so sure...but it's always easy to blame government for all our problems.
The reality, though, is that we live in the wealthiest, most prosperous, most privileged generation in human history. One doesn't have to go back too many decades to discover that middle class life in America meant a small house, one car, one black and white TV, and options and choices that were only within reasonable reach.
Today, by contrast, we sit at home and shop the world, we travel the world, job opportunities are vast and broad (if not always available!), and the conveniences and things we own would have been unimaginable during our grandparents' lives. It's an amazing (if sometimes fearful!) time to be alive.
Mod
They say that Obama will be in the top third moving up from the bottom third and George W (anybody's guess) but Weapons of Mass Destruction NOT might leave some issues for him but who knows in decades to come.
Lewis wrote: "Interesting comments on timing for RR and LBJ on page 367. Did the fall of the USSR take the focus off of the Iran-Contra scandal, or was RR able to spin or charm his way out of it? I do remember V...""I do not recall..." Reagan got a slap on the wrist for Iran-Contra. I'm curious what the reaction would be now if Obama pulled a stunt like that. Look how the right reacts to inconsequential BS.
Mod
Yeah, Iran-Contra is interesting, maybe with the social media, it might have followed even more intensely.A newer book on it:
by Malcolm Byrne (no photo)
Yeah, the author did not tie LBJ and Regan as well at the end, but I liked his theme moving into today with the idea of myth and really, high expectations. Political myths get politicians tripped up.
I agree with most of the comments about the challenges of tying together the presentation and discussion about the Johnson and Reagan presidencies.
I agree with those who said that the author didn't quite tie LBJ and Reagan together. On page 363, Darman said that for both men reality and myth didn't match. I think that's the best tie between the two. An interesting quote (page 359) - "But once a man starts running for president, he never really stops." Kind of limits our choices for nominees...
Agree, Tomi, it was the best tie in he did at the end.I should say myths certainly raise expectations of a president, which makes it harder for that particular president.
Brian wrote: "Peter wrote: "I think the epilogue is (in part) the author's attempt to tie together Reagan and Johnson - but I don't think it quite works. Yes, Reagan won a big victory as Governor of CA, but it w..."just a comment on this and other posts of this nature - I don't think Darman was trying to tie LBJ & RR together.
For him I think the real title of the book should have been "The Dawn of a New America" and the title "landslide" was partly for marketing.
This book is about the "the dawn" and LBJ & RR, I think, are simply the characters that acted it out.
On this section first I would note that reading the Afterward is an interesting section where Darman seems to feel freer to make comments beyond the period and it is well worth reading.REgarding thsi section though it is interesting that at the very beginning Darman indicates that RR is, right after election to the governorship, looking at the presidency. noted on pg 357 para 3 - it was only two years after Death Valley Days for RR
Was RR thinking like an actor - (I just got an oscar nomination - what do I have to do to get an oscar?) just a speculation.
pg 351 para 2 makes an interesting comment about index cards "scripted account of the Johnson presidency for Reagaon to perform" - but if RR is only the actor - who is the writer, the producer, the director? - my question - how much credit do we try to take away from RR?
pg 356 - just a remark on the RFK assassination - not only did it make a critic of LBJ a martyr it, in my view, reinforced the pillars of JFK's martyrdom.
pg 362 last para - RR and Bush II cut taxes and then shortly had large military expenses RR to overpower the Communists with an arms race and GW II to fight in Iraq - neither of them addressing these addtional costs. HW Bush abandoned his "voodoo economics" to get to be VP with Reagan - to bad
The thing that strikes me, in the book and in what I see as our real world, is that the Republicans currently portray themselves as fiscally responsible but have not performed for that goal as a theme.
Pg 373 talks of "less government" and I do believe that this line (leaving the era of the New Deal, Social Security, defending the world in WW II as a necessary job) indicates that Americans were shifting away - they could a bit as FDR had given social security and as it would be seen later in truer perspective, LBJ had given (provider for is maybe a better word) medicare.
Thanks Vince for your great comments. You do get a sense LBJ tried to be all things to all people, and this is path nearly impossible. Try to "out-do" FDR is rough.
Thanks BryanI really enjoyed the book - but you can see that in the review I just managed to post.
It took a while to come together and my five week vacation, where I carried only a guide book, a Spanish book, and a Kindle created (including recovery time) a six week hiatus in the reading of the book.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Iran-Contra: Reagan's Scandal and the Unchecked Abuse of Presidential Power (other topics)In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam (other topics)
Landslide: LBJ and Ronald Reagan at the Dawn of a New America (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Malcolm Byrne (other topics)Robert S. McNamara (other topics)
Jonathan Darman (other topics)
For the week of February 23rd - March 1st, we are reading the Epilogue of Landslide
The thirteenth week's reading assignment is:
Week Thirteen - February 23 - March 1
Epilogue (pages 349-368)
We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.
This book is being kicked off on December 1st.
We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, local bookstore or on your Kindle. Make sure to pre-order now if you haven't already. This weekly thread will be opened up February 23rd
There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.
Bentley will be leading this discussion and back-up will be Assisting Moderators Kathy, Jill, Bryan, and Jerome.
Welcome,
~Jerome
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL
REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.
Notes:
It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.
Citations:
If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.
If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Also the citation thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Introduction Thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Table of Contents and Syllabus
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Glossary
Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Bibliography
There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in his research or in his notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please. We will be adding to this thread as we read along.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - SPOILER THREAD
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Directions on how to participate in a book offer and how to follow the t's and c's - Landslide - What Do I Do Next?
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...