It might not be interesting if you have published a book, but I think I would have liked to read this thread while I was writing the book.
First, length: the book has 110k words (726k characters, 1,733 paragraphs).
In Word, that worked out to 312 pages of text and 80 pages of endnotes (double spaced/Times New Roman/12). When typeset, it worked out to 226 pages of text (with one illustration) and 37 pages of notes.
By the way, I was surprised by this! I expected it to come out well into the 300s in print. Honestly, I had no idea how long it would end up being until I saw it.
Since I had nine chapters, I tried to keep each of them reasonably short. I aimed for chapters around 9,000 words. That’s about where I ended up for most of them.
Second, words. The most common words were news (773 times), American (410), French (396), information (349), newspapers (341), revolution (327), and British (323).
Here’s a word cloud illustrating this…
Third: data. My book is largely based on a dataset of around 40,000 citations from North American newspapers to papers abroad. I wish I could count the number of excel spreadsheets I used.
More upsetting numbers... number of months it took to build that dataset: about five. Number of times in the book that directly cite this dataset? Five.
Fourth, time.
Time to write the dissertation (from diss proposal defense to diss defense): 1,176 days.
Time to revise (from diss defense until I submitted to the press): roughly 955 days.
After I submitted it to the press, it will have taken 585 days to publication. That’s pretty good for an academic press, given the time spent on peer review, revisions, copyediting, typesetting, indexing, and a million other things behind the scenes.
And finally, and most importantly, the ISBN number: 978-1-4214-4449-9.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today's thread is about the biggest anxiety I have about the book.
Probably not a great idea to tweet about this just before it comes out, but you know how it is when you've had a half beer on a Friday evening
I think I’m slightly heretical among some print historians because I’m really skeptical about how many people actually read print sources in early America—especially newspapers.
People who study the American Revolution often insist that people imbibed their big ideas about republicanism, liberty, etc from newspaper essays. They often describe newspapers as a particularly democratic medium, available to everyone.
if there's one thing I hope my book can do, it's push back against this kind of framing of the media crisis of the 21st century as a declension from an age of plain, honest, facts.
The document that this piece is framed around, the Declaration of Independence, claims to offer self-evident truths and facts—but a lot of the claims it sets out are, at the very least, wildly exaggerated. Some are just outright lies.
Study the Founders to find out how we got into the mess we're in. Don't study the Founders because they were wise sages with uniquely brilliant insights into the science of government. They weren't. Otherwise we probably wouldn't be in this mess.
I really do mean that first part, though. So many of our problems come back, ultimately, to the Founders' laziness, wishful thinking, irrationality, and intentionally anti-democratic thinking.
But we're supposed to revere them!
Right now, SCOTUS is out of control, but the majority's conservative activism is abetted by the fact that the original Constitution really *was* a deeply conservative, elitist, anti-democratic document.
When white supremacists and insurrectionist nutjobs call themselves "Patriots," (which is always) or when they fly the Gadsden flag or claim they're returning to 1776, they're drawing upon a very particular understanding of the American Revolution.
Gregg insists that, like conservatives today, the American revolutionaries were realists who accepted “human imperfectability.”
Instead of trying to regenerate humanity like the French Revolution, the American revolutionaries created institutions built on human weakness.
This is a pretty narrow view of the revolution! As Gregg notes, it requires that we dismiss Jefferson as an “outlier.” You’d have to ignore Paine too, of course.
So I just noticed that it's been 4 months since I quit my VAP a year early and started a non-academic editing job.
I spent most of the last decade working hard to win the lottery of a TT academic teaching job. I'm glad I didn't!
A 🧵 for grad students figuring out what's next.
Some observations before I start: I have benefited from a lot of luck and privilege. Hundreds of people applied for the VAP gig I had, and most of them would have done a great job I'm sure. It paid well, which gave me some cushion to take a risk.
Not everyone can.
(I'm not going to talk about why I left that job, because they're more complicated than twitter can handle. It wouldn't be fair to lots of good people to condense this for twitter, because really it was a matter of complex systems doing what they were designed to do.)