I welcome Professor Patterson's robust reply, not least because it affords me the chance to clarify my appreciative critique. Our differences and misunderstandings, such as they are, are products of propinquity. We read many of the same books, work on similar themes, care about common issues, and, more often than not, as he notes, share interpretations of American history in the past half-century. We broadly agree about how to straddle the divide of analysis and narrative. We both would wish to distinguish our ambitions from simple sequential chronological description and from social theory too removed from history. We also are committed to mutual learning and collaboration across disciplinary lines.