Constitutional Discovery Debunks the Myth of Writing Magic

Posted on February 2, 2010 by Mark Hanson5 Comments

The Hard Work of WritingAs a writer I’m frequently asked to work my “magic” — usually under deadlines that would confound even the greatest masters of the black arts. What many people lose sight of is that any well-written piece of content, whether blog post, e-mail or web copy requires a significant amount of advance thinking and subsequent editing. A recent historical discovery in Philadelphia underscores the importance of these steps in creating a well thought out document of any type.

While conducting research, a doctoral candidate stumbled upon an early draft of the U.S. Constitution at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Thirty-year old Lorianne Updike Toler noticed the familiar phrase “We The People. . . .” written upside down on the back of one of two known drafts of the historic document.

One of the framers of the Constitution, James Wilson, penned the words in 1787, but historical experts always considered the writing to be nothing more than a fragment. That all changed when Toler found the remainder of Wilson’s draft in the society vaults.

Wilson was one of five Constitutional Convention members selected to serve on a smaller group known as the Committee of Detail. For roughly two weeks these men sought guidance from the Articles of Confederation, the Virginia Plan and each state’s constitution before fleshing out 28 resolutions established by the convention.

They returned to the larger group with a report of their findings. Lore’s discovery, titled “The Continuation of the Scheme,” may very well be the first draft of that report. Much of the thinking and hard work that went into that report was preserved in the final version of the Constitution.

What was “especially thrilling” to Toler was seeing the framers’ thought processes in these early drafts. They are testament to the fact that creating any masterpiece of original content begins with the hard work of identifying what you want to communicate. The same principle holds true whether designing a web site, developing a story board or writing a feature story.

It’s also worth noting that when the time came to write the first draft of this very important (major understatement) document, the 55 men who were members of the Continental Congress looked to a much smaller group of five. When your goal is clarity your chances of success increase as the number of contributors decrease.

Image by Nic’s events

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr
  • email

5 Comments

uberVU - social comments on February 3, 2010

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by foleymo: Thinkers and Doers: Constitutional Discovery Debunks the Myth of Writing Magic http://bit.ly/9dzTy1…

Owen Kindig on February 3, 2010

Much obliged for the historic note, and I agree with the lessons you draw from it. Of course, in the communications biz we’re rarely tasked with writing anything with much weight; but it is nice when budgets and schedules accommodate our need to edit ourselves!

Mark Hanson on February 3, 2010

Thanks for the comment, Owen. What you said is all too true, but one can always hope.

Micheal Foley on February 3, 2010

With today’s technology, can we be more inclusive and collaborative? Why not just put up a half-baked thought and get the rest of your online community to fill in the holes, offer solutions from their unique perspectives and even edit it?

Wait a sec … I just described Wikipedia!

Do you see Wikipedia as a modern-day version of this “writing/editing process” in constant motion? If so, how do you think it’s doing?

Mark on February 4, 2010

I think it depends on the forum. In some cases a collaborative effort is appropriate (perhaps). But your suggestion seems to beg the question of what value a writer brings to the table in crafting a story or piece of content. It’s been said that writing is thinking on paper so the more people you have involved then the more convoluted the thinking could become.

Rather than having all these people play an active role in the writing, they should instead be sending the writer all the materials they think are relevant. That’s their way of providing feedback upfront. It’s then up to the writer to coalesce all that information into a cohesive piece of content.

Once that’s done, then the others can step in and edit the content. IMHO, that’s about as close to an ideal process as we can get.

Leave a Reply

← Back to WaggenerEdstrom.com