Writing thread: Openings, one of my favorite topics.
In a work of history or biography, the first paragraph, often the first sentence, tells you if you are in the hands of a writer, or someone just trying to arrange research and argument in some kind of logical order.
1/9
There are books that shout, “Here’s a bunch of stuff I know about this topic,” or, “Scholarly contribution!” But real writing requires that you give the reader a reason to turn every page. Raise questions in the mind of the reader & delay the answers, as David Lodge says.
2/9
Claire Tomalin, a giant, shows how to proceed chronologically but invest the reader in events long before her subject does the stuff that made you read about him. She starts with a sentence that announces she is telling a story. Then, mystery! Suspense! (Spoiler: He lives.) 3/9
Arnold Rampersad’s opening of “Ralph Ellison” is brilliant. A long, rumbling sentence puts us on a train, looking forward and back, a kind of midpoint foreshadowing. It builds curiosity about his youth. Clearly it had consequences. What happens later makes Ellison look back. 4/9
Richard Rhodes’s landmark book starts with a vivid scene, written for effect. What will happen next is important enough that Szilard will tell the story later. Rhodes makes us ponder details. A blast of scientific insight: What is it? How will it lead to the bomb? Immersive! 5/9
When I wrote my first biography, I wanted to grab the reader in the first sentence. I tried to locate the place we’re going to geographically and in the flow of time. A famous historian went there, remembered it, tried to reconstruct it. We know big things happened there. 6/9
But with “Jesse James” some readers complained I took too long to get to my subject. In “The First Tycoon” I began with foreshadowing—a posthumous trial revealing that my subject will become a big deal. It creates expectations for the book. It’s a scene, & we’ll return to it. 7/9
In “Custer’s Trials,” I faced head-on readers’ pre-existing judgment of Custer. Sentence 1 states the mission of the book overall: not defending him nor dodging his responsibility, but figuring him out. It frames the scene that frames the first chapter, too. Scenes are good. 8/9
I’m still trying to figure out first sentences and paragraphs. You make very deliberate choices to set the table for both chapter and book, to tell the reader, “I am taking you someplace.” It can’t feel contrived—yet it is! It should show you’ve thought it all out.
9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵
History thread!
Because I need to do something today, here is a long thread on why the 1890s were NOT a golden age, and no model for fiscal or monetary policy today.
tl;dr: The very reason we have the income tax today is because in the 1890s we realized tariffs sucked.
1/22
During the Civil War, the United States underwent radical monetary and fiscal changes to pay for the huge expenses of waging an existential war. It adopted a paper currency that the federal government would not redeem in gold coin.
2/22
It created the national bank system, in part to guarantee a market for huge new bond issues (national banks had to maintain a reserve of federal bonds). And it instituted an income tax.
In the 1870s, the United States reversed some, not all, of this successful experiment.
3/22
“Since fluoride was removed from Calgary drinking water in 2011, dental infections that need to be treated by IV antibioitics have increased by 700 per cent at the Alberta Children's Hospital. Half of those infections are in children under five.”
Link: cbc.ca/news/canada/ca…x.com/robertkennedyj…
The Calgary horror story didn’t stop in 2019. The costs of restarting fluoridation are high. Meanwhile, an excellent review of RFK Jr’s “theories” ran recently in “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.” Well worth watching.
The conspiracy theorists have been saying other countries don’t fluoridate (they have naturally occurring fluoride, like Japan, or fluoridate salt, or are no model for us), or cite studies of high levels of fluoride in uncontrolled water sources. They are exhausting but wrong.
🧵Trump victory, optimistic scenario:
Divided Congress means executive action
Tariffs cause stagflation & recession. Schedule F restarts the spoils system. ACA crippled. We stay in NATO but abandon Ukraine. Deportations feed recession; no camps. Trump names 1-2 SCOTUS wackos.
Trump victory, pessimistic scenario:
GOP Congress
High tariffs largely end trade. High inflation, shortages, depression. Social Security bankrupt. Trump controls Fed; low rates feed stagflation. Out of NATO; Ukraine falls. China invades Taiwan. National abortion ban. Then…
…Mass round-ups of the foreign born & detention camps lead to mass protests. Trump orders army to fire on protesters & orders military commissions to try “ringleaders.” Declares a national emergency & cancels 2028 election. Calls out military & orders arrests of opponents…
Let’s break down J.D. Vance’s attacks on Walz’s military record.
1) He seizes on a single comment by Walz in 2018 that civilians should not have “weapons of war that I used in war,” suggesting this is “stolen valor” because he never served in combat.
Vance is wrong.
1/6
Vance is playing a trick, conflating “war” with “combat.” During the “Global War on Terror,” Walz deployed to Europe to supplement base security. In a major war, a very small portion of the military is in combat. But all of it is in a war. Walz did as he was ordered—in a war. 2/
2) Vance attacks Walz for deserting his unit to avoid Iraq, claiming he retired when he got deployment orders.
This is a lie. Walz was eligible to retire after 20 years, but extended his service after 9/11. His unit received deployment orders *after* he retired.
3/
Trump's Gettysburg chat led some historians to write good threads. (Links ahead.) On the anniversary of Lincoln's death, let's ask why he was a successful strategist—why Jeff Davis failed—and how "revisionist" history makes military history better.
The answer is slavery.
1/17
🧵
Yes, slavery caused the Civil War. Long story short: The White South believed slavery would only endure if extended. Not just abolitionists but all Yankees resented this political aggression of the "slave power." Two newspaper clippings from 1860, Maine & South Carolina.
2/17
The White South rejected Lincoln's election, because they lost control of federal slavery-expansion policy. Eleven Southern state governments decided that, if they couldn't get slavery everywhere, they'd create a new republic that enshrined it in its constitution.
But why?
3/17
Trump says it's "where our Union was saved by the immortal heroes," adds a string of random adjectives, and clarifies that he thinks it was a good thing: "such a big portion of the success of this country." Inarticulate, reductive, but sure, why not?
2/9
Then Trump turns to Robert E. Lee, commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. That was the Confederate army, the one trying to break up our union. Let's skip over his initial comment for now, and consider his analysis of Lee's failure.
3/9