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
When my bio of Jesse James came out, some were upset at my portrait of a pro-slavery terrorist in the Civil War who seized the role of Confederate hero in Reconstruction politics in Missouri. I besmirched a folk hero!
Why is that? It says something about white supremacy.
1/9
I wasn’t making a leap. I just took seriously what he himself wrote & how he was discussed. His family enslaved 7 people in 1860. Proslavery politics was fierce and ugly in western Missouri, & his family was very partisan—hardcore secessionist. So why has that been denied?
2/9
There are some specific reasons in Jesse James’s case. He was addicted to violence, always in it for the money (well, money plus politics, but money first.) After his gang & Reconstruction both blew apart, he had a 3-year apolitical criminal reprise. It blurred his image.
3/9
Texas HB 3979 blocks Critical Race Theory in public schools. It's hard to imagine any prosecutions resulting. But it makes teachers vulnerable to parents' complaints—especially of the hot-take variety. And it could have unintended consequences.
Let's take a look, shall we?
1/10
Some of Texas HB 3979 is fine. It requires that students learn about founding documents, the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments, Native American history, etc. Correct me if an amendment changes this. But it's got some wacky & dangerous language. It's a mess.
2/10 capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/se…
The wording of Texas HB 3979 clearly shows its main motivation is to protect white children from any sense of the moral weight of history. But it's also aimed at a non-existent threat: teachers who are telling kids they are to blame as individuals for racism writ large.
3/10
Academic historians fret about not reaching the public. It's not enough to say (even if true), "I'm doing such important & interesting work." It's about writing.
First, accept that work that doesn't signal that it's for academics only can still be cutting-edge scholarship.
1/5
There are conventions for journal articles & monographs that serve a professional purpose, & signal that they are for fellow scholars. That's fine! But historians should embrace serious work that doesn't follow these conventions. It's not dumbing down to depart from them.
2/5
Second, academic historians who want a wide audience need to read fiction & compelling nonfiction journalism, & ask why it's appealing. It's not about color, an anecdote, an important fact. It's about giving the reader a reason to go on to the next page—the next paragraph.
3/5
Just Trump's opening remarks are lunacy. His first reason for asserting fraud is rally size. He claims 50,000 voters were told they couldn't vote because they already did & 100,000s of ballots were forged. No court has seen *any* evidence for any of this. washingtonpost.com/politics/trump…
At about 7:29, he says, "We won every state and every single statehouse.... We won Congress..."
I had jokingly suggested that Trump should just claim that he won every state. Why limit himself, if he's going to make stuff up? Lo and behold, he did.
He claims 5,000 dead Georgians voted. "They" (whoever "they" are, they sure work hard) "went through obituaries." I wonder if they have a mole inside the top-secret obit-reading operation. My God, Trump just monologues, on and on and on. Now he's making up numbers about Detroit.
Historian @KevinLevin mentioned a new biography of Lee coming this fall. I have no knowledge or opinion of it. But some historians asked, "Do we really need a new biography of Lee?" The answer is easy: always—if done right. The reasons are complicated. 1/7 penguinrandomhouse.com/books/253141/l…
Of course, I wrote about a man who is even more frequently chronicled and even more unpopular than Lee—though he contributed materially to Lee's defeat. I'd argue it was worth doing. I see four reasons for new biographies of old subjects. 2/7 indiebound.org/book/978030747…
First, new questions. I explored Custer in Reconstruction, his role in politics, his place in intellectual, environmental, & economic history. Unexpected contexts change how we see familiar figures, leading to surprising historical insight—though they don't rehabilitate.
3/7
Trump's reelection slogans come straight from the long history of white supremacy: 1) "Law & Order" 2) "Radical left governors & mayors" 3) "Protect the suburbs [from black people]"
Jesse James's life illuminates their meaning.
1/10
I'm not the great scholar of white supremacy, but I see a repeated pattern, including in Jesse James's life.
1) "Law & order" represents the *aggression* of white supremacy. Before the Civil War, the growing challenge to the slaveholders' dominance bred aggressive demands.
2/10
The proximate cause of the Civil War was the demand for *more* by slaveholders—especially new territory. Proslavery militants in Missouri (home of Jesse James, born 1847) organized "Border Ruffian" paramilitary units to force slavery on the neighboring Kansas Territory.
3/10