This isn't how writing works. In fact: if you haven't written seasonal product copy for, say, the Butt-Shakin' Santa--and I'm proud to say I've proven myself--you're nothing but a hothouse flower.
I have the soul of a Shelley--well, compared to Yascha Mounk--and you people would not believe some of the anonymous stuff I've written.
I have the argumentative and rhetorical powers of a Leslie Fiedler --I only mean compared to Yascha Mounck--and I have written automatic voice recognition customer-service scripts.
*Mounk
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There was some genius as well as some (deliberate?) cognitive dissonance in linking the wish that states have equal representation in Congress to the wish for a non-elected upper house to check the representative house. Those wishes are by no means naturally aligned. #Senate
Hamilton, for one, would have wished to get rid of the states altogether. He also wanted an unelected upper house.
In the Federalist, Madison can barely bring himself to discuss the equal suffrage of the Senate--yet he did want a body that could check the representative body.
It's interesting to consider that in England the focus of legitimate, deliberative governing energy, anyway, began to devolve on the lower house as early as the 18C, despite the ongoing power of the upper.
I mean Britain of course.
By the mid 19C, we find Trollope's Plantagenet Palliser more or less heartbroken to become Duke of Omnium and nevermore be permitted to sit in Commons, where the gritty work gets done.
Early winter, sitting outside bundled up with friends, distanced, around a cheap chiminea not throwing much heat, drinking hot toddies and getting slowly chilled to the bone--I can be nostalgic for almost anything, but kind of doubt I'll ever look back all that fondly.
I was aware of bring incredibly lucky to have the space.
When I criticize McCullough's books on the founding period, I get a certain amount of sympathetic "yeah, he's an entertainer, not a historian." I get the distinction, because I too am a (less successful) entertainer, not a historian.
But I personally find his stuff so incredibly boring! Like the stuff in the record that he elides is precisely the entertaining stuff!
I'll never figure this out. Clearly I do not have my thumb on the popular pulse. I suspect the largest readership within the genre enjoys a certain kind of lulling narrative that would put me to sleep before I even started trying to write it.