process that kind of happens. a lot of it is organic. what i do hope i identified some possible solutions for the plight of this abandoned group which i think is really the group that is, needs kind of our urgent attention right now. and so if it kind of call attention to that, then i think it's been a success. >> thank you very much for your time. ..

>> yet, it is an incredible narrative and storytelling. congratulations. just a fantastic book. [applauding] in addition to the fact that i admire san so much, i have to say that i am excited to be here with them today because he is a very good friend. when i was starting at texas monthly ingenue less about editing stories than i do today, we went to lunch together. work on a piece that i did not feel great about, but was okay

with. sam and i went to lunch. i had never met him before. he had been the southwest bureau chief and prior to that in national correspondent. he was hired as an executive editor and is now a senior writer in my neck of the woods. in first talking about the story, every moment that i thought that i had taken a misstep in that piece as an editor, he was able to identify on his on. yet he was able to do it in such a wonderfully supportive and instructive weight. i did not feel bad about having not done it as well as i would have liked to in the first place. that relationship was able to develop over the years in terms of stories we have written. i'm happy to be here today. i wanted to say that in my mind this book has been such of runaway hits, both in terms of the book industry, but also culturally. five months on the new york times best-seller list. rounded up to five. let me then ask you, the comanche and the story and

indians in texas is such a great story generally. it is one we all grow up hearing. we see it on movies and television and read books about it. every book has an occasion. what was it for you to read this particular history at this particular time? >> that is a good question. about 12 years ago i read a book by walter prescott webb called the great plains. inside this book, and it was about the great plains, but really about texas. inside this but there was a chapter as subchapter about the comanche's that put forth this premise that there was an enormous force sitting in the middle of the continent that determined how everything happened. i'm a yankee. what? which is second. i might know the art of song when, but i did not know comanche's at all. the only thing, comanche's are something that john wayne movies was cut four of, we are in

trouble now. you know, that was pretty much what it was. what happened was, that is what set of my interest. then i did all of the normal things you would do. but beyond that it was really about, i think, a yankees love affair with the state of texas. and i was bureau chief here i traveled all over the state. when i was a writer at texas monthly i traveled all over the state. i heard comanche's stories. we all look forward to * are you have to get to amarillo or love it. i know. it was true. >> their readers. so. >> it was a bit of just understanding that what the planes were and what a plains indian was. to me it was all -- of a lot of that comes through the book. oh, wow, the yankees learn stuff about the state. that informs a lot of the book.

none of this is normal to me. it was like, while. >> well, let me push on that and little bit in terms of what is it yet learned that we did not know popularly about the comanche? one of the things that struck me is the way that you are able to a frame the comanche existed. i have a sentence from the book. this surprised me. i never thought of it in such an order, structured way. you're right, by 1750 -- 1750, colonial times the comanche have carved out a militarily and diplomatically unified nation with remarkably precise boundaries that were patrolled and ruthlessly enforced. how was that possible? what was the comanche nation doing that there were actually boundaries that not all the other tribes respected, but the spanish, clearly, respected. if that goes counter to what i would have thought. >> 250,000 square mile piece of land, but it was not accidental. it was a piece that they fought

over for 150 years. sustained combat against everybody, basically driving everyone before them, nearly exterminating people like the apaches. what it was was a militarily dominant power from a the wind river mountains of wyoming where they had been a significant power. they got the horse, swept south. the reason for that 250,000 square mile empire, as i call it, although it does not look like a european empire, the richest buffalo plains in the country. that is what it was. if you were the strongest stride, what would you want? the richest buffalo plains. amarillo. think amarillo. that is where it was. and so they called the comanche the lord of the southern plains. that is what it was. that fateful day in 1836 when the raid happened, the touches that empire. of course it did not look like the roman empire. these were nomadic people. you could not see them. you could not find them.

he could not go to a village and burn it down as you could with east coast indians. >> not only did the touches, the tested in such a way that they were miles and miles away. they were out there on their round having no idea what was going to befall them. >> exactly. i want to talk about that. that aspect of the book informs the way that you have done this structurally, which i think is interesting. the way that you have crafted the book from beginning to end. you alternate chapters in terms of a grand sweep and then very specific stories. i wanted to ask you two things historical lead. i remember in the office however many years ago you were talking that you were going to write this book. i got excited because of my training. we talked about certain specific things that i knew a little bit about. i was amazed at what you had already uncovered. i want to throw out two dates that seem significant to me in this book, sort of book end dates in some of what the

comanche were able to do, the apex of their power particularly as it related to dealing with the spanish and then as they began to fight with mackenzie and his troops as they take off. one is march of 1758, the massacre. and one is october 1871 where mackenzie begins to push west. becomes the most feared indian fighter from the comanche standpoint. can you talk a little bit about those two dates? >> okay. >> the battle and what mackenzie was able to accomplish and how they inform our understanding of the comanche. >> what brian is talking about is the rate of 1758 in san seven. it was kind of a funny story. literally funny because what happened was the apaches had gone to the spanish in san antonio. we've really rethought the way that we think about this. we want to be civilized and come in to the commission. all of those raids that we have

done, we did not really mean that if. the spanish got excited. the apache said, you know where we bought the mission is in this place called sends out because this is our homeland. i can't remember what the premise was. we need you to build the presidio, which was the fourth time and the mission that went with it. outside. yes. so anyway, what happens is, you know, the spanish get very excited about this. they build these things in the middle of nowhere. what it turned out, though, was that the apaches lured them directly into the comanche land. and the whole point was to set up a buffer to, in effect, set there to enemies at each other. so what this showed, the spanish are out there going, what. it shows a lot about what i think what it was like dealing in those days.

they had enormous trouble with comanche's. they just bottled them up in this empire that was and p of all meaning. it was a remarkable show of power. anyway, the reprisal for that raid. the comanche's swooped down on the mission in presidio and kill everybody. it's one of those raids. the reprisal raid, the spanish mount 600 people, march north near the present town of wrangled an absolutely did destroyed or beaten. they turn tail and ran, which is the time watermark. the other thing you ask about was 1871. i start my book. 1871 was the year that these graeme warriors who had destroyd the american south. these guys were nasty pieces of work when it came to battle. i'm talking about grant and sherman and sheridan. that is who it was. they unleased more carnage than the world had ever seen. they finally decided in 1871,

that's why i stuck my book with the battle of blog canyon. they said, okay, enough is enough. this boundary, this frontier has been frozen for 40 years in a single place. no other indian tribe held it for more than a couple of years. think of a line between here in fort worth. basically that is where the frontiers that for 40 years, well, 35 years. in other words, they said that enough is enough. there are 4,000 of these guys. we have 51,000 casualties at gettysburg alone. so this final will to go get them was the beginning of the end of the comanches. that was double, of course, with the slaughter of the buffalo where they took their food away. 1871. the guy that they sent was a guy named randall mackenzie. so many people that nobody has ever heard of including jack hayes, we will mackenzie, the great indian fighter, but he was grant's favorite officer in the

civil war. and so you have these and graeme warriors unleashing their guy against parker and the fall of 1871. it is one of those great kind of moments. it is the will to destroy them finally. but it also, i guess, in retrospect shows you just how powerful the plains indians were. >> that scope of time that they were able to exert that kind of influence for so long and be so dominant. >> right. and i think that that, you know, one of the things i, you know, a lot of people ask me about this. you know, did i set about in my book to write a revisionist history of the experience of native americans in north america. the reason for the question is, well, there is this idea that is driven by wounded knee and books and movies in the 60's that indians were victims.

indeed, they work. they were all victims eventually have the great steamroller, american steamroller that came west. but there was also power, and i think that what surprises some people, anyway, is just how powerful they work. somebody suggested there were more like a nation state like germany or prussia. in many ways to work. you have this -- is a kind of -- it is a different way to look at indians. they lost eventually, but they were enormously powerful and determined, really if you look at comanche's, all of these questions you could ask about the center of the american continent, who was is that stopped the spanish in their drive north? it was the comanches. gustav the french? it was the comanches. -- you and i were talking about this. comanche's let the mexicans to let texans and in the first place as a buffer. basically offering texans up as

meat. well, this kind of backfired on them. of little bit. [laughter] here we are. but it was, you know, the adaptation of the 6-shooter and the 5-shooter. the chino, the invention of the rangers. as i say, the static -- the fact that the frontier existed for 40 years in a single place. you just keep going. on some level it is about power. >> right. >> you had mentioned, i was curious to ask, how many of you are familiar with randall mackenzie? that is a big show of hands. he has a good line in the book which i'm paraphrasing. george armstrong custer became famous in defeat. mackenzie ended up obscure in victory. i think that is pretty great. i mean i think you have to tunnel down a little bit to know that. you talked a little bit about the notion of wounded knee. that was one of the things that came through reading the book for me.

i know it has been much discussed. what can you tell us about the daily life of the comanche. what is the daily life like? what did you figure out about the social and governmental entities that controlled what they did and why they did it? i think your conclusions are, perhaps, of little bit different than what we would have thought. >> to me, the ultimate dream of america in some ways. they had this incredibly flat society. there was no hierarchy. there was a war chief and civil chief, but at any given day somebody could organize a war party. there were no police societies, no warrior societies, no priest casts. it was nothing, just a stripped-down war machine. they fought, hunted buffalo. nobody could ride with them. you had this incredibly elemental world where if you were a comanche mail you were free to do whatever you wanted.

there were no restrictions. to me the comanche's did have a culture. it was not sophisticated, but other tribes wove baskets or build houses or had a leveraged art. comanche's had none of that. inside, they love to have fun and campbell and wagered. they left to do many things. i saw them as this kind of just absolutely stripped-down spartan kind of war machine that everybody was scared of. offered unbelievable freedom. it was the freedom that writers and poets in america have always talked about, the great spacial freedom, but it was also of freedom from institutions. you know, when you came west you got away from all of those institutions back there in boston that maybe you did not like. you know, i think that on some level the comanche's structured the way that they work. other tribes were away more

hierarchical. if you look at the iroquois the, they were extremely sophisticated in their social order. it was a weight, grace, gloriou, wild, freedom, both spatially, but also culturally in terms of you did not have the church and state and nothing i found that an interesting parts. >> that sort of hyper militaristic culture was clearly what happened on the battlefield. i wonder if you might talk a little bit about that sort of what was it about their cultural or their society that caused them to prosecute wars in the way that they did? the raid on parker's for and how instrumental that is to the comanche history. talk a little bit about that and what your conclusions were. >> waiting was what they always did. go back. let's go back to the 1500's and 1400's. rating is what everybody did.

you take somebody's whenever, dog or women or buffalo. it was killing and rating. this was done. this was done forever. what happens to the comanche, sometimes in the 17th century they got a hold of the horse. it transformed them in no way that nobody had ever been transformed the before. so when you had suddenly everyone is writing all the time, but now one tried can out right. it is like somebody said, attacking some sherman tanks. you're able to ride a horse, attack fully mounted. nobody did this. suddenly you have this complete transformation, i guess, of the world that was really -- before the horse they read each other and kill each other all the time and tortured each other. before the horse everything was, you know, and after they pretty

much did the same thing. the difference was the balance of power shifted. i think that was -- >> this tribe had essentially been kicked around this directly, right? baked on by other tribes and harassed and threatened. they were -- the horse to them was what other technological advances would have been to society later on. >> on the planes anyway, it changed things. so if you have to see the comanche's as once empowered, if you can out hunt -- out hunt buffalo. it was part of the two. if you can outfight people, that really changes to you are if what you are about is rating and that is what you do. and of course the tribe that got the worst, it was not just the comanche. the ones that were good at it, we all know them.

sue, arapaho, cheyenne, comanche. apache. those are the guys that are good at the horse. >> were going to go for about ten more minutes and then open it up to questions which we enjoy. so if you have a question began to make your way up to the microphone. i want to ask two things. one about content and one last question about kraft, which i think is interesting to anybody who wants to write a book. one, the way that you structured this book is, i mentioned earlier, alternating chapters. you do some of the big, grand history of the comanche and then some man starting with what happened that parker's fourth and taking it all the way through. what did you find about that? that is clearly one of the classic texas stories. it was a big story at the time. people talk about it. newspaper reports. but tell us a little bit about sent the and and colada.

>> well, i can merge those questions together. basically this was a story. when you are writing a book you need it -- it helps if you have something that no one has ever heard of. cynthia and parker, and the the whole story of the comanche is kind of lost. i think people over a certain age in texas although the story. my daughter goes to west like high-school and does not. so i think there was a bit of forgetting history. just a bit of that. there was an opportunity to do this story. but the other side of it, to get to your question of structure, what i wanted to do, i wanted to tell -- what i've been talking about manny is the rise and fall of the comanches. the big picture from their roots, obscure routes to the peak of power to the fall in 1875. that is a great epic story.

but what is "is inside the story there was this wonderful little human narrative of the parker family. what enabled me, one of these to the fine editors who has somehow miraculously, all of my best stories work done by brian. where was i going? the note, yes. before i said how great you work. [laughter] >> keep going. >> the structure. structure. it became, brian and die, this is what we have done for years. we talk structure. writer and editor. this should go first. that should go third. but the secret of the book, if you will, and my brilliant discovery was that i really needed to alternate the big rise and fall with the little story. so you get the big rise and fall, which is like a james lynch the book. it begins back with the amino

acids floating around in the universe. it goes forward. this allows the story of this the 09-year-old girl to get kidnapped in 1936 by the comanches, eight set in motion these incredible forces. if she became famous three times. once for having been taken, the highs for having been the white squaw who refuse to return, and the third time when charles goodnight recaptured her the fourth time as a mother. you had this amazing story that rolls forward. the last and greatest of the comanche chiefs. so that is not the end of the story. his second dance on the reservation where he becomes the wealthiest and most influential. so that is what the appeal was. he could do both of these stories and have them run together. that is the way the book works with the intersection is really great. he sits down with the book and start to go through.

when you realize what it is, it is a wonderful moment, how the story is being told. one last question, i swear, and then we will open up the floor to you all. i am curious, you have been a writer for time magazine. you have been a writer for a monthly magazine. you are now a senior writer for the dallas morning news turning out pieces on the finances of bill white and yet also a profile of george hamilton. a wonderful range. he wrote the book previously. so how did you begin the process of figuring all of this out? this could go on. in a nutshell what was it about your reporting that did not being a professor of history, someone who made his living doing this, how did you figure it out? >> a very good question. and it is one that has been asked all the way along. it started out with, who is going to hire me or give me an

advance on a book? i'm not a historian. i had to go the extra mile and approved. in a lot of ways i found that i'm a reporter. that is to ibm. that is what i do. i found that my reporting skills work to do history. there is one little thing that i did that i don't think -- maybe i should not even say this. historians might laugh be out of the road. one of the things i realized is that i had to -- i could not be one of these guys who went out and beaver away for three years and came back with this much stuff. then i sit down and say, okay. here we go. once upon a time. yes. in 1872, you know. i realized that because of what i do, particularly texas monthly nine narrative fiction -- fiction, my stories are not fiction. but, you know, what i did in

effect was i read a lot of books for background. but i reported this chapter by chapter. found things that were for later. literally it was never long between researching it which is likely done at the university of texas year, little bit in oklahoma, and the panhandle. it was that kind of doing that. i really found to my surprise that, you know, when i went into the archives at the university of texas where i spent months and months, the reporting skills that i vault being a reporter, they are the same. in some ways book writing is really, really slow reporting. [laughter] >> great. this has been great. has been a real treat. we have a gentleman who was to ask a question and a woman here. if you have questions, it would be better if you came up to the microphone. we have 15 men still. the last thing i will say is immediately after this session

sam will be at a book-signing session. if you have not read it hopefully this discussion has been shown that this is a fantastic book. i hope you will read it. >> great book. i really enjoyed it. thank you for writing it off. my question has to do with the comanche behavior if they were captured by someone who was inclined to torture them. did they have some kind of code of behavior, informal of course, that they would have been raised from used in how to respond to being tortured? >> not that i know of. the only thing that i know of is there was kind of a weird golden rule that applied all over america. a comanche male who was taken in battle by a pro or use or something, he was alive. he would automatically be tortured to death. it would be quick, slow.

that happens to everybody. there was no exception. and what astonished white people, i don't think there was echoed necessarily, but what astonished white people when they got there was that indians would fight to the last breath, every single one of them. the white man eventually learned why because if you got captured allied it was really not pleasant. it is thought that even though this was not written widely about, always save one bullet in the chamber for rangers. it was the same way. it was just the version for the indians. you could not possibly be taken. torture is one of the things that i devote kind of a big piece of a chapter to. it is something that we all have to come to terms with when we look at indians. although, you know, i swear that i just read a memoir of the war in the pacific.

what the japanese did would have been fully in line with the koreans. and then, obviously, singling out japanese, but things that are going on in africa today are just as bad or worse. anyway, yes. ma'am? is it not on? >> how would i know. >> there it is. >> you can hear. what was it like to be a comanche woman? >> a comanche woman? yes. this was one of the things that i tried to do. in talking about cynthia hand, they did all the work. they did not have much status. they did all of the work. it was astonishing work that they did do. they also fought. but, you know, the process of tanning buffalo hides is brutal work. they did this all day long. they were the ones -- these were

nomadic tribes that moved all the time. they were the ones entirely in charge of the logistics of the move. the man, you hunt, fight. there was nothing else. women did absolutely everything. it was a kind of a brutal life for of a woman without the freedom that the men have. it was, you know -- and i think cynthia and live that life. when she came back she kept trying to escape. as hard as it may have been, it was still a world. a hard world for women. very hard. >> you talk about having done a lot of research and reading. what is and i spoke about just the day-to-day life, i've read one by kelson called buffalo soldier. i have nothing to base on how accurate. it talks about spiritual life and how important hunting.

>> which? are you talking about a specific book? >> cal since buffalo soldier. >> i have not read that book. >> what motivated the comanche warriors spiritually and then why it was so important to hunt and to capture people and to torture. >> it was -- the society -- the comanches society evolved particularly during the years of the apache conquest when they nearly -- nearly annihilated the apache. they evolved into a tribe were statice relied on military success. that, i think, changed everything. you have to look at them. you can look at the spartans the same way. there was nothing but military success. religiously they had a very simple version of religion. magic all around. magic lives in beavers and walls

and trees. the idea was to harness it, whenever you could do to harness it. it was not a complex as other indian tribes in north and south america had. it was pretty simple. it did not necessarily, i don't think, in form their warring habits. on the other hand it was their great weakness as warriors. you kill the chief and the medicine is gone, and safely. there was a lot of that. they were easy to spook. but i think that in some ways you have to see them as a stripped-down war machine where all of the status in the world depended on victory in battle. it got to the point where i think it even got a little out of hand. that is all they wanted anymore. yes, ma'am. >> i enjoyed your book, to having grown up in lubbock. spent 20 years of my life at blog canyon. i've really enjoyed that part. how was it that parker after all

the things that were done as chief, able to turn that around and completely become part of the white man's society? why internally did he maintain that hatred he had originally? >> the one thing that he had -- and by the way, a canyon is where the world's greatest museum, and my favorite. if you have not been there, panhandle plans historical museum. incredible. anyway, where was i? the cool water have something that most indians did not have on their reservation. they did not have much of the 20th century. that was optimism but. it is interesting. very gregarious. very social. very convincing. it was interesting. if you look at what the skills were needed in comanche society, your power as a chief, your

ability to go to recruit a war party. you go around. we're going to do a war party. com. if the chief was not convincing than he could not do it. but quanah was really good at it. he was the guy. he was a talker. he was optimistic. he was out there. he was gregarious. he was social. he was positive. the things that made him a great chief in some ways carried over. it did not carry over for many other people, and i think that there was something about him, and i don't know where it came from, but he had an optimism and hope and feeling that things were going to get better. when he got to the reservation he was like everybody else, waiting in line for rations, living in a tepee with nothing. yes, he thought things were going to get better. in no way one of the reasons why i loved quanah is he is a great american hero, but he shares what i think, to me, is probably

the single most defining american trait, and that is to share optimism. the belief that it is going to work. you're going to get better. your kids will have it better than you do or you will do better this year than the last. he believed that all the way through. he donated land and build the school and became the first chairman of the school board. that is the kind of guy he was. it's interesting to note that geronimo, kind of a drunken old collection. they knew each other. they lived a few miles away. geronimo with a measure of irony is mack -- buried on quanah roa. >> outstanding book. my wife picked it out for a trip that we went up to white deer, texas. we were right there in your territory while we were listening to it, the an abridged version. i particularly like -- i thought you were very balanced in your approach to both the white man and the indian.

when i got back i started reading some reviews. most of them were good, but there were a lot of reviews that kind of took you to task a little bit. i think it was from the indian standpoint that maybe you were a little harsh on the indians. i thought it was balanced, but how do you respond to that? >> there has been a little bit of that. i expected more blow back than i got to tell you the truth. i did not -- i had lunch with a chickasaw filmmaker talking about his comanche france. they don't like, necessarily, my portrait of the brutality. i could have gone much farther than what i did. on the other hand they believe that the portrait of the -- the overall portrait was fair. i mean, my view of how to do this was really not to take any political agenda at all. not to say, well, the white man

was less cruel than the indians. i am just a reporter. i gather my reporting. the reporting showed that there were unbelievable white atrocities and what we consider to be unbelievable indian atrocities, and that is just the way the frontier was. i have a little bit of that, but not much. i was expecting much more, and i would have heard by now. yes. >> cynthia parker is probably the most famous indian in texas. she certainly was not the only one. was she different from all the of this? >> i'm trying to think of that famous one. mary jammers was surname. anyway, she was very unusual in history. she is not the only one who would not come back or will fully assimilated or crossed the line.

there are a few other examples in history, but it was pretty unusual. in fact, it was so unusual that a white woman could choose the savagery over the civilization. it was shocking to people. they could not believe it that you could possibly be so fully assimilated to forget her own language, to take all of the apache -- i'm sorry, the comanche ways. and so, yeah, i think in her era, anyway, she was considered to be absolutely unusual and extraordinary. many, many captives. most were returned relatively quickly. most of the adult women who were returned were considered the damaged goods and had trouble with their lives, but anyway. yes. >> with the power that they had why didn't the comanches sweep the plane's left of the mississippi river? >> i think that is part of it.

the numbers were not big enough for that. i think the real reason is that indians never really -- i mean, they saw property and strategic ways. there would never fight to take a position. they would never do anything like that. they would never sacrifice large amounts of people to take something specific like a piece of land. the way that i think they saw their empire was simply the southern plains where the buffalo were. that is what it was. and so the idea of this sweeping northern mexico which people have suggested that they could have done or -- that is more of the european idea. that is not so much an indian idea. it would have been pointless. there were no buffalo there. there were no buffalo by the mississippi. all they wanted was that. there was an interesting idea. they never did understand property, and to some extent some indians still have trouble

with private property. >> we have the five minute signal. maybe bill to another questioner to. i'm sorry we want it to everybody. please go ahead. >> i was curious. it was a great book. i learned a lot. what about palo duro canyon and how did that in form their society and to talk a little bit about how that was a fortress and undiscovered place that white man did not know about. >> if any of you have seen it, is 100 miles long. the second-biggest canyon in the west. it was really something. it became toward the end of the comanche era ground zero. it has always been a winter camp, but it was all just this unbelievably gorgeous river cut, stream cut canyon cut place where you could hide. ultimately the war was fought in and out of the canyon because it was such a great place to hide. but i think it's -- they were

nomads. i think historically they would in-depth in palo duro canyon before winter. it just became part of their society. one of the most interesting moments in the history of the west -- i describe this in my book. at some point this a you have to let us out on another buffalo punt. you have to let us out of the reservation. we would like to go on a buffalo hunt. we lobbied for that. they finally let them go. they trust quanah at this point. they go out. they are shocked and astonished that they find no buffalo. by this point most of the buffalo have been killed. well, they get to palo duro canyon, and lo and behold they find out that a white guy on the. a guy named charles goodnight now owns the place. so they ride in. quanah goes, what do you mean? is one of those conversations. wait a second. you on this?

what does of me? on in what sense to mack did god give it to you? to me that was the great moment when you saw how fast it's changed. only a few years before good night literally on that. you have barbwire string in the panhandle, and through western oklahoma. anyway. i guess one more. you get the last shot. >> i just wanted to ask this question. you talk a lot about the dogs that accompanied the comanche. were you describing a particular breed or were they mostly walls or what? >> i don't know. that's a good question. i assume that they were will -is, but i don't know. my favorite stock moment in the book, there were too. at the battle of peace river, there were all killed. the other one was there was a moment when -- this is during the battle of blog canyon.

they chased the indians of over the edge of the state plans. they are up there. there is a pursuit going on. the indians are getting away. they are so close behind that the indians are kind of shocking things as they go. one of the things they were checking with stocks. some were poppies. you had this strange moment where the show -- showed -- soldiers were riding with puppies. just one of those weird moments. anyway, i don't know that much, but the dogs were ubiquitous. so always dogs. in fact, that was the way before the horse. they carry all the belongings. so, anyway. are we done? >> squeeze one moran. >> one more. one more. >> i've found that a failing in the book being that the maps. >> of the people have noted

that. duly noted. i think it could have used more maps. >> by your publisher. >> second edition. granted. >> i would like to thank you all for being here. i would like to thank sam gwynne. [applauding] >> the stock was part of the 2010 texas book festival. to find out more visit to texas book festival got org. >> follow book tv on twitter. send as a tweeted with your favorite book tv program from 2010. from now until december 10th we will select one tweet per day at random to receive book tv swank and the program will be included in our holiday schedule over the december 24-26 weekend. we look forward to seeing your favorite book tv programs from the last year. thank you for watching. >> next from the 2010 miami book