Afterthought 40: From the (would be) Stage to the Page

New here?

A quick note: if you found me through my writing on Israel or antisemitism, that’s still a core part of this publication. Echoes is the more personal lane, where those public themes meet memory, family, identity, and the book I’m writing.

The sharper commentary is still on the main feed, and it remains free.

The ‘Yalla’ piece started as a fourteen-minute speech. Five acts. A bookend structure built around a man at my gym wearing a kaffiyeh and a Star of David hanging from my neck. I had delivered it. It worked. The room responded in the places I needed it to respond.

When the collaboration prompt arrived, my first instinct was to adapt the speech. Take what I had already built and reshape it for the page. It sounded efficient. It was not.

A speech and an essay are not the same instrument.

On stage, you earn your argument with time. You build ten minutes of emotional trust and then you make the case. The audience gives you that runway because they are in the room with you. They can see your face. They hear the pauses. The silence does half the work.

On the page, the silence doesn’t exist. The reader is alone with the words. There is no face to read, no pause to feel, no room to sit in. Every sentence has to earn the next one without the benefit of presence.

The first thing I cut was the signposting. In the speech, I say, “I’m going to come back to him.” That line tells the audience the bookend is coming. It builds anticipation in a room. On the page, it’s a spoiler. The reader does not need to be told the kaffiyeh guy is coming back. They need to feel the return when it arrives.

The second cut was the explicit thesis. The speech has a line that names anti-Zionism directly and defines it. On stage, that line lands because twelve minutes of personal story have earned it. On the page, surrounded by two other writers already making political arguments, it would have pulled my piece out of the personal register and into the editorial one. The Groucho Marx section does the same work with more texture. I kept Marx. I cut the thesis.

The hardest cut was the ending.

The speech closes with a universal call to action. It asks the audience to do something. Resist. Attach. Hold on. It’s a strong closer for a room. But on the page, in a piece about my specific journey, the universal register felt borrowed. It sounded like a commencement address. My readers do not come to me for general wisdom. They come for the specific thing. The lived thing.

So I ended where the story ends. The kaffiyeh disappeared. The Star of David is still on. The yalla was never what I was running from. It was what I was made of.

That is the craft principle I keep relearning.

The specific is always stronger than the universal. The scene is always stronger than the sermon. And the closer that trusts the reader to draw their own conclusion will outperform the closer that draws it for them.

I have given that speech to (small) live audiences and felt it work. I have now written it for the page and felt it work differently. The speech asks a room to respond. The essay asks a reader to sit with it.

Both versions are mine. But the one on the page is closer to the bone.

That is usually how it goes. The first version of anything I write is the version I am willing to say out loud. The second version is the one I am willing to leave behind in writing, where I cannot control who reads it or how.

The second version is always scarier. It is also always better.

This is one of many Echoes from the book I’m writing.
Fragments of a larger story about survival, inheritance, and identity.

If you want to be among the first to know when it’s ready, you can join the early reader list.

If you want to simply follow along it as it comes together, you can subscribe.

Everything I’m writing lives on the feed.

Most readers find me through my Notes.

This is where the Notes find their roots.