INK · No. 003
The Forgetting Machine
Franklin's Spectator drill — and why the wait between the copy and the rebuild is where writing actually gets learned.
“…making short hints of the sentiment in each sentence, laid them by a few days, and then, without looking at the book, try’d to compleat the papers again, by expressing each hinted sentiment at length, and as fully as it had been expressed before, in any suitable words that should come to hand.”
A printing house in Boston. Benjamin Franklin — sixteen, and four years into an apprenticeship he signed at twelve — sets type for his brother by day and teaches himself to write by night. “About this time I met with an odd volume of the Spectator,” he remembers. Met with, then bought. “I bought it, read it over and over, and was much delighted with it.” He thought the writing excellent and “wished, if possible, to imitate it.”
What he did next is the reason this page exists. His method was mechanical to the point of comedy: reduce each sentence of an essay to a hint, put the hints in a drawer, wait for the prose to fade, then rebuild the essay from the hints alone and grade the rebuild against the original. A hint is not a copy. It is the sentence’s idea in a few flat words of your own — close to what a reader now would call a one-line summary — and that distinction carries the whole machine, because a copy preserves the wording and a hint deliberately loses it.
The drawer is the device. Copying while looking produces transcription; copying after forgetting produces composition, because every sentence must be re-derived from its idea. Franklin had built, long before anyone named it, a retrieval-practice engine — and aimed it squarely at style. The wait is not idleness and not a quirk of the schedule. It is the mechanism. While the wording drains away, the idea stays, and the gap between them is where the writing has to happen.
Then the grading. “Then I compared my Spectator with the original, discovered some of my faults, and corrected them.” Slow down over that sentence, because everything self-taught writers usually skip is inside it. He did not compare himself to the Spectator in the aggregate and resolve to do better. He set his page beside the page, line against line, and let the difference name the exact move he did not yet own — this verb, this transition, this order of clauses. The gaps were not failures. They were a syllabus written in his own hand.
The rebuilds kept exposing the same shortage. “I found I wanted a stock of words” — wanted, in the old sense: lacked. So he made the drill harder. He took some of the tales — the Spectator’s stories — turned them into verse, waited until the prose had faded, and turned the verse back into prose. Meter is a synonym engine. It keeps demanding “words of the same import, but of different length” “to suit the measure,” or of a different sound for the rhyme — and the constant hunt fixes the variety in the mind, where it is ready the next time a sentence needs it.
Harder again. He sometimes “jumbled my collections of hints into confusion,” waited weeks this time, then “endeavored to reduce them into the best order” before rebuilding a single sentence. The exercise no longer trained wording at all. It trained the order of an argument as a skill of its own — separable from the sentences that carry it, drillable on its own schedule. His gloss is exact: “This was to teach me method in the arrangement of thoughts.”
The grading stayed honest to the end. Comparing his work with the original, he “discovered many faults and amended them.” But sometimes he “had the pleasure of fancying” that “in certain particulars of small import” he had been “lucky enough to improve the method or the language.” Fancying — believing, not proving; even the daydream is filed as a daydream, and the original keeps the last word. Yet it was enough. The fancy “encouraged me to think I might possibly in time come to be a tolerable English writer, of which I was extremely ambitious.” A tolerable writer. The ambition is exactly as modest as the method is ruthless, and the pairing is the whole lesson: hold the standard next to your page, not above it.
None of this happened in school hours; his schooling had ended years before the indenture. The drill ran in the margins of an apprentice’s day — at night after work, in the morning before it, and on Sundays, when he contrived to be alone in the printing-house with the borrowed quiet.
He engineered those margins as deliberately as the drill itself. At about sixteen, converted to a vegetable diet by a book — of course by a book — he proposed to feed himself for half of what his brother paid for his board, and “presently found that I could save half what he paid me. This was an additional fund for buying books.” The meal hour became the other classroom: while the rest went off to eat, he stayed in the printing-house alone, dispatched a light repast — bread, a handful of raisins, a glass of water — and had the room and the hour to himself. He even logged the return on the arrangement, crediting his progress to the “greater clearness of head and quicker apprehension which usually attend temperance in eating and drinking.” It is the same signature as the drawer: find a fixed cost, redesign it, collect the difference in pages.
Notice, too, what the method refuses to protect: the ego. Most writing practice is arranged — by instinct if not by intention — to avoid exactly the moment Franklin scheduled, the one where your page and a better page sit side by side with the differences legible. General advice is comfortable because it is general. The comparison is uncomfortable because it is specific: not write more vividly but here, in this sentence, the original chose a verb and you chose three adjectives. A loop that never surfaces an error cannot correct one. Franklin’s loop surfaces one per sentence, and makes him fix it before it lets him feel finished.
The method survives untranslated, and it costs nothing but the wait. It needs one writer you would steal from, one piece, and a drawer. Mark the piece. Copy out its hints — one line for each sentence’s idea, none of its wording. Wait until the prose fades; days, not minutes; the forgetting is the ingredient, not the obstacle. Rebuild the piece from the hints, at full length, in your own words. Then set your page beside the original and read the gap slowly. The gap does the teaching.
If the wait feels like the step worth skipping, notice that it is the only step that cannot be faked. The drawer is doing what willpower cannot: it deletes your access to the wording while leaving the idea intact, so that what comes back is composition, not recall wearing composition’s clothes.
Two and a half centuries of writing advice have not improved on the drawer. Most of it exists to spare you the comparison — the one step Franklin refused to skip. What would you rebuild first?
Sources