Designing Your Book: The Initial Structure 13
populations that consider themselves at risk change over the course of the
20th century. This is beginning to look like a book about interest group poli-
tics. But wait! This emphasis doesn’t serve my argument.
I move on to the remaining template: chronology. An historian by nature
and by training, I feel at home with chronological order. But immediately I’m
overwhelmed. There are so many characters, so many events, so many facts
in the complete history of the nuclear power debate in these four states from
the detonation of the first atomic bomb through the Fukushima accident.
Even worse, my argument resembles a hood ornament when it should be the
force under the hood.
I pause to reread my argument. I flip through the topic cards. Then I spend
some time studying the designs that I’ve already drafted. Gradually I redis-
cover the original motivation for this research project. I want to tell a story
about the people who viewed themselves as victims or champions in a confron-
tation that would determine the fate of the economy, the planet, and human-
ity. The realization that I have more information about Pennsylvania than any
other state leads me to notice the prominence of the Three Mile Island (TMI)
nuclear accident. And there, at last, I find the frame for my story. Modifying
the chronology template, I design a compelling narrative of the nuclear power
debate in Pennsylvania.
Modified Chronology Template: The Pennsylvania Story
Introduction: TMI Accident (1979)—quick scene to grab attention; over-
view of the argument
Debate over Nuclear Power Prior to TMI (1960s–1970s)—focus on PA
—coal industry in PA economy; mining accidents
—growing concerns about personal health and the environment
—key actors in the debate (vested interests, civic leaders, environmen-
talists)
—refer to coal industry and debates in IL, KY, and WV for comparison/
contrast
*Ideas about risk*
TMI Accident—full story (1979)
—focus on PA and local events; glance at national reaction
Immediate Aftermath of TMI Accident (early 1980s)
—debate over nuclear power heats up; nuclear plant closures
—focus on PA but use other case studies for comparison/contrast
*Ideas about risk*
New Normal (late 1980–2010)
—Chernobyl (1986) and reaction in the United States
—fortunes of the coal industry
