ideas – Scott Loftesness

The Starting Five I Keep

On November 25, 1963, every journalist in America was at Arlington Cemetery covering the state funeral of John F. Kennedy. Jimmy Breslin went to find the grave digger.

His name was Clifton Pollard. He was paid $3.01 an hour. He had been called in on his day off because the foreman thought he was the best they had, and the foreman was right about that. Breslin spent the morning with him while the ceremony unfolded a few hundred yards away — the dignitaries, the riderless horse, the flag folded into a triangle and handed to a widow. Pollard ate a ham sandwich and kept working.

The piece Breslin filed that afternoon is still taught in journalism schools sixty years later. Not because it covered the funeral better than anyone else. Because it didn’t cover the funeral at all. It found the true subject by ignoring the announced one.

That instinct — turn away from the obvious, walk toward the unglamorous specific, trust that the universal is hiding there — is the one idea I’ve returned to more than any other. It shows up in two very different writers who occupy, in my mind, the same position on the roster.

Breslin got there through deadline fury and a saloon-bred instinct for where the real story was breathing. He didn’t theorize about it. He just did it, on a deadline, in a city that rewarded the loud and the fast. John McPhee got to the same place by an entirely different route: patience, structure, and a willingness to spend six months learning how canoes are made or what happens to a piece of shad on its way up the Delaware River. Breslin worked like a man catching a cab. McPhee worked like a man building a cathedral.

But the underlying claim is identical. If you stay with a specific, unglamorous subject long enough — if you resist the pull toward the obvious center — it will eventually yield something that couldn’t have been reached directly. Pollard and his shovel. The orange grower and his grove. The nuclear physicist who also happens to be a canoe builder. The method is the same. Look where no one else is looking. Wait longer than feels reasonable. Write what you find.

This is one player, really. Just wearing two different jerseys.

The second seat belongs to Wright Thompson — not a single book but a stance. The premise that the most revealing place in any story isn’t the event itself but the moment before and after it, when the subject is alone with something they haven’t yet put into words. Every piece in this tradition is quietly asking: what is this person carrying that they can’t say out loud? It’s a question that turns out to apply well beyond sportswriting. It applies to most things worth writing about.

The third is whatever the Apple design era taught about constraint and clarity. Not nostalgia — something more durable. The idea that removing something can be an act of confidence. That the most useful things often appear to be doing less than they are. This one surfaces constantly in writing, in argument, in the editing pass where you decide what the piece actually needs versus what it accumulated along the way. Features are easy to add. Knowing what to cut requires a different kind of certainty.

The fourth is the philosophy embedded in spaced repetition — not the algorithm but the claim underneath it. That knowledge you don’t revisit isn’t really yours. That understanding decays on a predictable schedule whether you acknowledge it or not. The honest response isn’t anxiety about this; it’s the habit of return. Going back to the same passage, the same idea, the same question on a different day, and finding it has changed — or finding that you have.

The fifth seat shifts. That’s probably the right design. Four constants and one that evolves is roughly the correct ratio for a starting lineup that has to play in different eras. Right now that seat belongs to the question of what AI does to a practiced human sensibility — whether it erodes it by substitution or clarifies it by contrast. Earlier it was held by a certain kind of systems thinking. Before that, something else. The player who earns that spot is always the one asking the question the current moment most needs answered.

The coach who wins five championships doesn’t do it with the same roster. But he does it with the same philosophy. The starting five aren’t the players who happened to be good once. They’re the ones who keep earning their minutes regardless of what the season throws at you.

Breslin knew where to find Clifton Pollard because he’d been looking in that direction his whole career. The skill wasn’t the story. The skill was knowing that the story was never where everyone else was standing.

That’s the one I keep coming back to.

The Traffic Light That Split the Atom

If you wandered past the Mathematical Society and kept going, you’d come to a pedestrian crossing on Southampton Row where it meets Russell Square in London’s Bloomsbury. On a humid morning in September 1933, something world-changing happened there.

It was Tuesday, September 12. A cool, drizzling, quintessentially English autumn day. Leo Szilard — a brilliant, restless Hungarian-Jewish physicist who had fled Nazi Germany earlier that year — stood waiting at the traffic light. He was irritated, as people often are when a red light holds them up on a gray morning. He had been thinking about Ernest Rutherford’s recent lecture, in which the great pioneer of nuclear physics had dismissed the idea of extracting usable energy from the atom as “moonshine.”

Szilard disagreed. And as the light turned green and he stepped off the curb, the thought arrived in a flash.

What if a single neutron struck a nucleus and caused it to split, releasing two neutrons? Those two could split two more nuclei, releasing four — then eight, sixteen, thirty-two. In a large enough mass of the right material, the process could sustain itself — a chain reaction — and liberate enormous amounts of energy.

He saw it all in that instant: the possibility of limitless power, and the shadow of a weapon unlike anything the world had ever known.

Szilard was not in a laboratory. He was not surrounded by colleagues or equipment. He was simply crossing a London street, a refugee with too much on his mind, when the future opened up in front of him.

He filed a patent within the year and had it kept secret by the British Admiralty. He spent the rest of his life in the aftermath of that crossing — working on the first controlled chain reaction in Chicago in 1942, then becoming one of the most tireless advocates against the use of the weapons he had foreseen. The man who imagined the chain reaction spent decades trying to break it.

The spot where it happened remains utterly ordinary. Buses and taxis still rumble through the intersection. Tourists hurry toward the British Museum. Students cross on their way to Russell Square. There is no plaque. Szilard himself, given how deeply pacifist he became, might not have wanted one.

That feels right. The moment wasn’t grand or ceremonial. It was the kind of quiet, internal shift that happens when a prepared mind meets an ordinary irritation at a traffic light.

The hinges of history are fragile things, and they don’t announce themselves. Enormous consequences — nuclear power, the atomic bomb, the Cold War, decades of arms-control efforts — all trace back to one man’s realization while crossing a rainy London street. And once a thought like that arrives, it doesn’t leave. Szilard carried his for the rest of his life. He understood, earlier than almost anyone, both the dazzling promise and the terrible cost of what he had imagined at that crossing.

I came to this story through Sebastian Mallaby’s The Infinity Machine. It stopped me cold on the page, the way the best historical details do — not because it was dramatic, but because it was so ordinary.

Next time you’re stuck at a pedestrian light on a humid morning, pause for a moment. The light will change. You’ll step forward. But you never really know what might change with you.

Share this:

Share this: